Posted By Lorraine Shuker Not sure if this will help you but the only one I can think of Associated Dairies Ltd v. Hartley (1979) Following a fractured toe injury to an employee, the factory inspector issued an improvement notice (s.2(1)) to a supermarket company requiring the provision of safety footwear free of charge for employees who used roller trucks. At the time, the company made safety footwear available for purchase at cost, and offered a credit system for payment. The company appealed on the grounds of cost outweighing the risk, and also that its current system was reasonable and in line with trade practice. It was held that the employer's duty under s.2(1) to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of employees is a general duty, and that it is right to consider the extent of the risk and the time, trouble and expense involved in any specific proposed solution. In this case, the company's existing policy was considered to be in proportion to the risk (considering the cost of provision for all employees at all stores). The law only prohibits a levy being placed on safety equipment provided under specific requirements, not under general duty clauses of the HSWA 1974.

Posted By philip storey hi paul have you looked on the hse prosecution page http://www.hse-databases.co.uk/prosecutions/ regards phil

Posted By paul debney thanks for the info ladies and genlemen

Posted By Barry Cooper We provide basic safety footwear and have agreed with the union that we will provide a suitable pair of safety footwear appropriate to the risk. Employee want a choice of nice stylish fancy footwear, so they pay the difference. I believe we meet our duty under the legislation

Posted By J Knight John, what you're saying about noe part-paying for PPE runs contrary to established knowledge on this subject. It sounds like this view has been imposed on you, if so, who by? If this is e.g. HSE's position now then we have a lot of policy re-writing to do, John