I currently work for an heating company as an QHSE Advisor, the companies role is very varied, depending on the contact and the operatives working environments can very different (domestic and commercial properies).

We have taken another look at our policy for the issing of safety footwear and how we implement this and also the inforcement of the policy. We do not work in (Full) construction sites but most of our installations do full under CDM and in these environments we insist that safety shoes to be worn at all times, we do have an ongoing problem of how to inforce the use of safety footwear as some operatives come back with old arguments as to why they do not wear..

• When i am in my van , no need to wear then!
• Not comfortable to be wearing them all day!
• Clients dont like us wearing safety shoes in the homes!

These statements i believe do have some merit but not generally in the working environment, our process at the moment is that when new operatives are inducted they are instructed about many safety aspects (including PPE) and are issued a screwfix voucher for £30 for the purchuse of suitable safety shoes, we do not stipulate make or type , only that they have toe protection as a minimum, the next checks that are done are on a monthly basis when their vehicles are inspected, we do have some supervisors (not all departments) that conduct Work In Progress inspections. I have recently approached my Manager to review this process as I believe the issuing of vouchers is a grey area, and i'm sure is not compliant with the PPE regulations. 

I am looking for others views on this situation and am looking for their observation and experience on this matter within their own work enviroment.

You could consider supplying disposable overshoes for use when in clients' homes.

Toe cap boots are not suitable footwear for driving - the ankle support and/or steel mid-soles make it uncomfortable particularly in manual transmission (clutch) vehicles.

Toe caps are also uncomfortable after time and should be rotated.

They need toe caps, not necessarily mid-sole protection so why not try the newer composite caps in a trainer style?

Cable, telecoms and other major contractors do use plastic overshoes for domestic vists

£30 is cheap - PPE when required should be suitable not to a price point.

Originally Posted by: taps

Hi all, sorry if this seems the same old story, but can you explain why giving your staff £30 to purchase their boots does not break section 9 HASAW and if the employee adds to the voucher price he/she is not being levied, and how we can be sure that the standard of the footwear purchased by the employee by adding to the voucher meets the recommendations/controls within our risk assessments, ie wear footwear to The EN Standards

The alternative is to force people to wear footwear of your choice. We also offer a £30 reduction on safety footwear. We have over 40 suitable pairs available for £30 or less on our notice board. However, as with all things, people always want the latest fashion etc. Therefore they often want a pair costing in excess of £60. Do you suggest we spend this on them, despite there being suitable cheaper alternatives? Where would you draw the line. If someone wants a £200 pair, is that ok?

Disclaimer, if somebody has a genuine medical reason as to why they would need a more expensive pair, we pay the full amount. We have two people in our factory that this applies to at the moment.

Thanks for your reply Cpt Beaky, I'm still trying to work out how this does not breach S9, I fully understand that it would be (possibly) unreasonable to provide £200 boots for all, it is the fact that they are being "levied" if they add to the £30.00.

I am dealing with an issue were the empoyee has been diagnosed with Plantar Fasciitis by his Doctor, due to the fact that they stand as part of their job role, 8hrs a day, one of the solutions I have suggested is that the employee is sent to a podiatrist to have inserts made for his footwear, HR are adamant that it his problem and should pay himself, she suggested that Poundland sell them, if that is within his price range.

How do I convince her to change her mind.

Taps

Originally Posted by: taps

I am dealing with an issue were the empoyee has been diagnosed with Plantar Fasciitis by his Doctor, due to the fact that they stand as part of their job role, 8hrs a day, one of the solutions I have suggested is that the employee is sent to a podiatrist to have inserts made for his footwear, HR are adamant that it his problem and should pay himself, she suggested that Poundland sell them, if that is within his price range.

How do I convince her to change her mind.

Taps

As far as I am aware this would come under "reasonable adjustments" as well as "S9". Your employer has to make reasonable adjustments to cater for any health issues that you have. And it would be hard to argue purchasing inserts for a medical condition is not reasonable.

You cannot charge for any equipment that an employee needs to carry out their work safely. In your employees case, they need the inserts to carry out their work in a way that does not negatively affect their health.

In regards to the £30. As long as an employer can supply suitable PPE for that price or less they are not "charging" their employee. There are no laws forbidding employees from voluntarily purchasing their own PPE. If there were no suitable safety footwear options for that employee at £30 or less, then the employer must offer a suitable pair and meet the cost.

we buy the screwfix marble boots, these are toe tectors and mid sole with decent grip.  Techs dont wear them whilst driving which is ok.  The problem with the trainer boots in construction is that its hard to tell if they are boots or general trainers, so site managers inside on boot style only.  Over shoes are find for indoor use, but as them the question that if they dont wear them in the clients home, who would be to blame if something breaks their toe.  The answer is the employer, therefore the employer needs protecting, hence boots are required.

If techs want to pay towards better boots then they can, but the ones chosen are more than suitable.

One style is not a choice - you are sailing close to the wind if you have a single boot to choose from and everything else is an employee surcharge.

A tool supplier is also not necessarily the best source for PPE especially with the change in the directive placing responsibility upon the market supplier rather than the manufacturer for compliance to standards.

Whose name appears on the declaration slip in the box?

Taking a 10.5G shoe (not particularly large or uncommon size) means I do not always fit in a lot of "standard" safety footwear - the toe cap is formed too narrow so I end up with my toes being pinched and rubbed if I select my actual size OR I have to wear a couple of sizes too large and end up flapping around.

Problem is if my toes are not within the toe cap am I getting the designed and intended protection?

From experience over size boots also rub across the top of the foot and have a tendency to crease and fail more quickly than correctly fitting footwear.

Suitability for all PPE is in the protection and comfort of the wearer not a documented specification for the boot.

So yes keep a uniform colour in two or three choices - just remember like their owners all feet are different.

Originally Posted by: craigroberts76

if a boot has been tested and is deemed as suitable for workers who do not have any conditions we are aware of, surely there is no need for a "personal" choice, some like tan, some like black, but they have no choice over company uniform colour so why boots?  As long as we have evidence to show that it is suitable for the wearer, surely thats sufficient?

I think you're arguing with a straw man.  I have never had a case of someone objecting to compnay issued PPE just for a different colour, and if your staff are rejecting safety boots because of the colour, I suggest there's something else very wrong in your business that needs uncovering.

Not everyone's feet are the same shape, you know.  A badly fitting pair of boots can make a mess of your feet (but a badly fitting shirt is unlikely to cause you phyical harm).

If that particular outlet is your chosen provider have two or three style options from their catalogue as "paid for" by employer - either voucher or by purchase order / account on the day they visit - then set your rules on other matters e.g. no brown boots, no trainer look alikes, no riggers etc.. if it costs more than the standard choice you pay the difference....

There are other national providers with whom similar arrangements can be made.

Our employees choose from a national supplier catalogue where we have two shoes / two trainers / three ankle boots marked as free of charge for men and women - anything else is charged (when more expensive)

Just to clarify Roundtuits post - safety footwear does not come in half sizes and this is I think what causes the majority of problems.  For someone whose foot measures in at a half size then the shoe will either be too big if you go up the size range or too small if you go down it.