Posted By Bob Thompson CMIOSH
Hi Ian whether or not the "unifom" is classed as PPE would depend on the companies risk assessment, Any requirement to wear that or any other protective equipment should be contained within the infection control policy which CSCI will insist that they have in order to be registered.

If they are required to wear it for infection control purposes then the company should pay for it. if the wearing or not is open to choice then that is their policy and your partners choice.

What other forms of PPE do they provide for the prevention of cross infection? at least disposable gloves and aprons I hope.

Regards Bob

Posted By Merv Newman
Your partner should ask the question : why should I wear this ?

If the answer is even remotely related to health and safety it is PPE for which the employer must pay.

However, that kind of question could be a right jobsworth.

Merv

Maybe it is common practice, but I have never ever heard of employees being required to pay for company issue clothing. Apart from officers in her majesty's forces

Posted By Adrian Watson
HSWA 74 Sect 9 states that "No employer shall levy or permit to be levied on any employee of his any charge in respect of anything done or provided in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevant statutory provisions."

Reg 7(3)states "Where it is not reasonably practicable to prevent exposure to a substance hazardous to health, the employer shall comply with his duty of control under paragraph (1) by applying protection measures appropriate to the activity and consistent with the risk assessment, including, in order of priority—

(a)the design and use of appropriate work processes, systems and engineering controls and the provision and use of suitable work equipment and materials;

Reg 7(4) states "The measures referred to in paragraph (3) shall include—(e)appropriate hygiene measures including adequate washing facilities."

As the clothing - work equipment - is provided to prevent cross infection - a hygiene measure - in pursuance of a specific requirement of the COSHH regulations then the employee should not charge for the uniform. You can apply to an employment tribunal.

Regards Adrian

Posted By Chris Jerman
Uniform, as in dress is NOT PPE. PPE is designed to protect the wearer against a hazard of known concentration or force. Chef's whites may be PPE as they can be specially treated for flame retardance for example, as would a firefighter's tunic. Clothing that is specifically worn for 'identity' purposes is not PPE. It has no special qualities or attributes. Preventing cross infection due to becoming dirty is not what was in the minds of those who created this back in '72. Trust me.

Posted By Chris Jerman
Good argument - well made, Adrian, but I'm not buying it. We can trade regs all day, but this is about the spirit of the law. Reg 9 was never intended to be applicable to a temporary worker in a nursing home and whether they have to pay for a smock that may get spills on it. It's stretching the Act too far.

Chris

Posted By Ron Hunter
It isn't PPE. If she doesn't have to wear it, then she doesn't have to buy it.

Posted By Tabs
As she is expected to wear it, and pay for it, it may well become a tax-deductable element of the job (assuming she breaks into the tax bracket).

She can contact her local tax officer to discuss. No promises though :-)

Posted By Tabs
Recoup the costs when she quits the job, by hiring the uniform out for fancy dress parties :-)