Posted By Swis
A newly graduated young person, desperate for employment was offered a job through an employment agency with the condition that he provides his own safety footwear (required for the job)… When I intervened to convince the relevant agency that safety footwear should be provided by the employer, the agency offered the job to someone else.

:-( feeling very remorseful.. )-:

Anyone else encountered anything as such??

Posted By Bob Youel
contact your local HSE/EHO so as they can register it - they must by now have a long list of such examples!

Posted By FAH
Hi Swis

This is my interpretation of the situation that you have described within the UK - different rules probably apply elsewhere.

If I've got it wrong, would someone please provide specific guidance as to the source of their alternative information.

Forgive the rather long & turgid discourse, but I've tried to keep it simple & specific.


The "temp" provided by the Agency is in an anomalous situation with regard to their employment position.

For the payment of NI & [normally] basic rate tax, I understand they are considered to be the nominal employee of the Agency that provides them.

For the application of relevant H & S legislation, they are considered to be the nominal employee of the site to which they are sent.

Additionally, HMRC also allow them to be considered as "self-employed". This enables them to purchase & write-off against their personal tax such items as PPE, relevant training to further their employability etc.

Under UK H&S legislation, the employer has to provide the [on the books] employee with the PPE identified as necessary in that workplace. This is not normally taken to include the "temp"!

The MHSW Regs - Reg15 - recognise the relationships outlined above and address the type & extent of knowledge required to be provided by the site controller to the Agency; who are then made responsible for passing it to the "temp". That info doesn't explicitly address the requirement for PPE for the "temp".

So - some employers will insist on providing their own PPE to their standards, others will be just as insistant on the "temp" providing their own.

I'm not aware of any H&S [criminal] "Case Law" on this, perhaps someone out there knows of a case or two?

The end result is that until there is clear direction on this, we shall continue to debate it without achieving a definitive closure.

Frank Hallett

Posted By Phil Rose
Of interest - this does mention the provision of PPE for agency workers, but cunningly doesn't mention who is responsible for doing so. http://www.hse.gov.uk/workers/agencyworkers.htm

Para 25 of L25 also 'discusses' this but remains somewhat ambiguous in it's wording

Posted By FAH
Phil, thank you for the support for my view of the perceived problem. I decided not to go to the PPE Regs because the MHSW Regs are where we should be able to define the relationships - & I agree, the PPE Regs are less than helpful here either because they can't extend the duties withpout changing the MHSW regs..

John, Thanks for list of Civil Cases, there're a couple there that I didn't have.

However, unfortunately, no amount of Civil decisions either way will help provide a definitive platform to support a decision under HSWA.

Frank Hallett

Posted By Wayne
Average cost of a pair of boots to an employer = approx £30.00

Average cost of a broken toe due to wearing sub-standard or just totally inadequate footwear = No idea, but more than £30.00

Solution:
Buy a pair of boots, even if it is only for a few days or weeks. Even SME's can probably afford a pair of bbots now and again if they have a reasonably small turnover of staff.

Regards

Posted By TBC
http://www.totalworkwear...ce-Boot--GC2-P_p_68.html

Cheap as chips £12 no vat.

Posted By Phil Rose
I accept the 'real world' scenario John. Such 'policies' are, I would think common place so it is strange that the HSE haven't dropped onto it and provided some less ambiguous guidance, especially with the growing increase in the use of migrant workers, many of whom are employed through agencies.

But, surely the bottom line is that it is all about cost/money. If safety footwear was 50p neither the agency or the user employer would be arguing too much about it - I reckon one or other would just pay up and be done with it.

Posted By DaGuru
Interesting thread......principally it comes down to control. If you employ these people on a supplied labour contract you then adopt the role as the employer.

As the employer, its your duty to supply required PPE free of charge.

Simple IMHO.

Posted By DaGuru
Interesting.....would you wear the shoes issued to you in your local bowling alley?

Posted By DaGuru
the bowling alley situation is an interesting one....people are horrified at the thought of putting someones elses safety shoes on, but dont think twice about it sharing footwear that has been worn by hundreds of people playing ten pin bowling.

Posted By DaGuru
didnt realise you can purchase safety overshoes, which may solve some employer problems....share re-use etc.

http://www.cromwell.co.uk/SYT9637060F