Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Julia Bicker
As an employee, would it be illegal for you not to wear PPE which has been provided for you or is it just a legal obligation for the company to provide it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
In the UK, if the PPE has been specified as necessary by the risk assessment then, I believe, yes. The employee has obligations under HSAWA section 7
'as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to cooperate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with'.
This duty is reinforced in the Personal Protective Equipment Regs themselves, 1992.
However, before issuing PPE, employers do need to be discriminating - it is the 'last resort' and it does need to be effective and tolerable.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
If supplied it has to be used.
The employer also has a duty to ensure that it IS used.
However, most PPE is lacking in comfort, it's use imposes restrictions upon its wearer by its nature. Some, like passive RPE, can become distressing to wear. In almost all cases, the wearing of passive RPE, when used in heavy labour, leads to exhaustion and can lead to fainting. That's why there should be breaks in work when wearing it.
The wearing of eye protection can also lead to problems. When wearing spectacles and working hard, perspiration leads to "fogging" of the lenses...
This is why PPE should not be the "first line of defense"...
Many employers, however, do not believe in providing any premium protection and use PPE rather than spending any money, on extraction for instance.
Not only false economy, but dangerous. Employees refuse to wear any equipment that causes them physical distress (rightly so) but the use of RPE for instance, should bear in mind that passive RPE rarely fits the face properly, and leads to significant amount of contaminated air leaking past the face seal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By james mackie
Hi Julia
A risk assessment (MHSWR sect 2) should be carried out to determine the need for PPE. If PPE is require as identified in the risk assessment a method statement should be produced and conveyed to the employees(information, instruction and training).
The PPE should be suitable and sufficient for the task and provided free of charge.
Employees must cooperate with their employer (HSWA sect 7) therefore if PPE is required they must wear it (reg 10.2) or they can't do the task.
Remember, PPE should only used as a last resort as it is only 10% effective at controlling the risk.
Hope this helps
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
Julia,
The answer to your question is that if the PPE is appropriately provided then it must be worn, failure to do so is a breach is a breach of the employees' duties. However, there are a number of points added to the postings that give rise to some concerns.
Many people view PPE as being a "last resort" control measure. In effect PPE is an integral part of the overall control of a work operation rather than a last resort. Certainly it should never be used as a convenient substitute for engineering controls, safe working procedures or competent practice, but in many circumstances it is the appropriate means of protecting the employee from harm and in that respect will always be 100% effective. If it is less than this then it is the wrong PPE for the purpose, or the wearer has been inadequately instructed in its use.
You control the work operation utilising a variety of means, each of which contribute varying degrees of safety, but all of which contribute 100% to ensuring the operation is safe before it starts.
John, your statement about RPE rarely fitting the wearers face would surely be cause for considerable alarm if it were true. However in all my years of training people in the use of RPE I have found nothing that would substantiate your statement. RPE must be fit tested to the wearer to ensure that the nightmare scenario of contaminated air leaking into their breathing space does not happen. It must be well looked after and maintained to ensure that it remains suitable for its purpose and finally the wearer must be suitable trained and assessed as competent before being authorised to work with RPE is hazardous atmospheres. If these conditions are met, then RPE will always fit, and will never leak contaminants into the breathing space.
Regards, Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Well, in all my years of WEARING rpe during work, I have the memories of the "black lines" down the side of the nose due to contaminated air being drawn through the gap and not through the mask.
I can also attest to the FACT that wearing passive rpe is exhausting, very much so in this weather.
And the masks are not the cheap type of basic filter either, they're 10 quid a throw.
I have the active type with a pump as well, but it is SO painful to wear, due to the weight being on the front.
And as for the employees being forced to wear it, they won't. I feel that many of you are "contractually obligated" to medium to large employers...which is not a good place to gain experience really, since over 75% of the workers are employed by SMEs'....who count every penny. Twice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Laurie
To put it succintly, the wearing of PPE is an obligation, not an option, and just in case you are thinking of coming back with a supplementary Julia, no, they can't sign a waiver!
Laurie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Yes, that's so.
But what about when the company has not even attempted to solve the problem first and relies upon PPE as a "first line of defense" ?
What about the companies who refuse to comply with their obligations because PPE is cheaper than compliance ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.