Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 21 September 2001 19:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Graham Clarke MIOSH, MIIRSM I work for a construction company and have a problem with senior management, they insist on charging for PPE. I have stated on many occasions if a company we sub work to are a boni-fidi contractor, working for us and have 5 or more employees they; (the contractor company), pay for the PPE. If they are a 1, 2, 3, 4, man band irrespective of payment they are classed as our employees and we must supply PPE free of charge as per Section 9 of the HSWA 74. Can you imagine the outcry if we used say a two man team of self-employed persons and did not issue them PPE and they had an accident.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 21 September 2001 22:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Powell Graham, Excuse my ignorance here, but can you clarify please. Are you stating that the size of the group dictates whether they are contactors or employees? It is my understanding that anyone working on "your" premises and not "directly in your employ" is deemed as a "contractor" We have several contractors on site single and two man teams. They supply their own PPE. We would of course supply PPE as replacement for them whilst on our site, but at cost price! Would you please clarify the definition of contractors. thanks Andrew
Admin  
#3 Posted : 22 September 2001 17:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson I have to agree with Andrew here. The size of a company does not dictate whether they are contractors or employees. Even if they are not required to have a written policy under HSWA, they are still bound by the rest of the Act. You are only required to provide PPE free of charge to YOUR employees. Regards, Nick
Admin  
#4 Posted : 23 September 2001 12:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Woods Would you let them onto your sites without the correct PPE? The answer is at the site gate "no boots no hat no JOB". You only need to supply PPE to your workers. The policy and method statements you collected from your contractors before considering their tender should state the arrangements they make for the provision of PPE. If not the contractor should be asked to state his arrangements in writing. The provision of PPE becomes a bigger problem when you use agency workers in factories etc. The agency says they don't work for them and the factory management say there not their workers either. Because of pressures to get the job done theyare inevitably allowed to work without the correct PPE. Robert Woods.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 23 September 2001 13:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Graham Clarke MIOSH, MIIRSM I understand where you are coming from, however if they are a 1 or 2 man band working for us on a limited contract, say the length of the project,(then we get rid of them), surely they are classed as our employees for the length of the job and as such we can not charge for PPE.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 23 September 2001 17:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jane Moody Graham Your "two man team of self-employed persons"...Are they being paid at an hourly/daily rate, or to do a specific job ? Do they pay their own tax ? If they are paid to do a specific job, pay their own tax and you call them "self-employed", they are not employees and they are responsible for providing their own PPE. However your employer is responsible for ensuring that they wear PPE - back to the "No hard hat, no safety shoes, no job". If they turn up without suitable PPE it would be acceptable to send them off site or sell them PPE. Andrew said his company sells PPE at cost prices. This seems very generous to me. These issues are probably best agreed in writing before "contractors" start work. Most "contractors" will jump through hoops to get the contract before they have been officially engaged.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 24 September 2001 11:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter J Harvey Is there not a difference here between casual staff and contractors and could this be confusing the issue. If you employ an electrician or brick layer as casual staff, they are then your employee. If you contract to a electrician he then is not your employee and so responsible for his own PPE. I am looking at a site at the moment where the main contractor subs out anything major and employs casual labour for minors, his PPE rule is dictated by this.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 24 September 2001 17:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martyn Hendrie Surely the answer to this question lies in whether or not a master servant relationship is formed with "the contractors." If you so closely direct the activities of "the contractor" as to form that relationship you must treat them as your employees. If "the contractor" has sufficient freedom to organise his own activities you do not. The following extract indicates some of the areas that should be considered when assessing master/servant relationships. {A servant is a person employed to perform services for another in his/her affairs and who, with respect to his/her physical conduct in the performance of the service, is subject to the other's control or right to control. In determining whether one acting for another is a servant or an independent contractor the following elements are to be considered: (1) the extent of control which, by agreement, the master may exercise over the details of the work; (2) whether or not one so employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; (3) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; (4) the skill required in the particular occupation; (5) whether the employer or the person doing the work supplies the instrumentalities, tools and the place of work for the person doing the work; (6) the length of time for which the person is employed; (7) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (8) whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the employer; (9) whether or not the parties believe they are in the relationship of master and servant; (10) whether or not the principal is or is not in business; and (11) such other factors as may be reasonably considered in determining whether the employer has control or right to control the person employed.} I hope that this is of assistance as regards who is responsible for paying for PPE. However, I agree with the comments made by others that as the "employing contractor" you have a responsibility either under HASAWA Section 3 or Principal Contractors duties under CDM (whichever applies)to ensure that all operatives are adequately protected.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 24 September 2001 21:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Powell Graham, I think I see the point,I apologise in advance if what I am thinking comes across as patronising. Rules are rules, they are fine when they work. Instead of tackling the often difficult, sometimes impossible job of ensuring certain groups play by the rules, you simply provide signs, inexpensive PPE etc to save time/hassle and finally injury. We have a new catering contract, the catering manager has poor commnication with her direct manager and finds safety related items difficult. To get the ball rolling I have provided minor items free rather than force them to order it themselves delays etc etc, it also helps with relations. Andrew
Users browsing this topic
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.