Are we talking employees/contractors?

Can they wear face visors? These don't restrict breathing (let's not get into the argument on whether face coverings do) and are also effective and stopping a person from spreading the virus when coughing etc.

Beyond that, if they are unable to wear a face covering for medical reasons and you can't keep them 2m+ away from other workers (without perspex sheets etc.) then I would question whether they should be returning to work yet.

Doctors notes are not issued for exemption and is clearly stated in the legislation.

By what right would you ban them from site if they are exempt? This is NOT a failure to comply with H&S legislation as "face coverings" are not PPE nor are the manufactured to any standard.

The regulations require those that can do, inclusion of the exemption recognises that not all can.

The regulations do not state anyone not wearing a covering must not / may not - where such draconian action occurs it is enacted by the ignorant mob.

You could ask them to wear a visor instead (the whole thing is play acting rather than actual protection anyway - even the Head of the CDC in America claimed a surgical mask would protect HIM missing the point that they are designed to protect others) BUT there are those who could also have exemption issues with visors as well as sometimes it is not about the placement but rather the proximity.

And of course if you ban someone from a work location because they have disability which prevents them from wearing a face covering you will bring down the Equality Act on your head

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

you would be placing other people at risk by having this person in your work area. 

Interesting that your default is to assume the person is a carrier and therefore a risk to their colleagues.

That person is already on the bus/tube/train....

That person is already in the shop/restaraunt/cinema....

Never knew SM had affected society to the degree that we are guilty until proven innocent (by which time no one apologises)

I never assumed the person was infected, I assumed the person has the risk of being infected, thereby posing a risk to the workforce. We are in a pandemic, I think it is a fair assumption to make. By that logic no-one should need to wear a mask unless there is proof that the are currently contagious.

This isn't about "guilty" or "innocent", this is about public health.

"typically there are 128 hours per week beyond your control"

They are not at my place of work, they are not my concern. When they are at my place of work, they are my concern. Not really sure what your point is here? I am not saying that they have to wear a face covering outside of work time. I think you are straw manning rather than answering whether the Equality act has exemptions for public health issues. I know that my own protected belief (veganism), covered by the Equality act 2010, doesn't extend to public health issues, so I can't see why a disabilty would. I am not being facetious, it is a genuine question. 

Again I point out that we don't have a face covering policy in our workplace. However should we need to introduce one (if government guidance changes) then I am interested whether we would run afoul of the Equality act 2010 should we furlough a person that had a disability meaning they couldn't wear one. Totally hypothetical. Or alternatively, refused entry to someone that couldn't wear one (such as a customer).

"As an aside, I thought Sikhs were excused from wearing hard hats or crash helmets, or am I out of date on this one?"

AFIAK this is the only exception in the PPE regulations for religion, but it is actually stated as an exception, thereby over-riding the Equality act's original exemption. https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l25.pdf  - Guidance 3 paragraph 16

If the government enforced face coverings in the workplace it would need to start by applying clear demonstrable and measurable set of standards that could be scrutinised.

Then we could get in to debates of being clean shaven/religious belief and Equality.

Last time I checked the revoked Construction Hard Hat Regulations exemption had been extended to cover all turban wearing Sikh's no matter what their workplace with the exception of being an active fire fighter.

If the Government is going to make it a legal requirement to wear a face screen should they not also stipulate what form this has to take and how it shall be worn? After all, if the purpose is to protect others, i.e. not the wearer, surely it must be capable of achieving this. Merely watching TV just count how many times one sees masks that are obviously inadequate, or even more often are not being worn correctly. 

Your logic would be fine when HM Gov were picking up the bill of employees sent home unable to work.

Now the retention scheme is winding up where is their pay going to come from?

What legitimate reason will you use for sending them home? Face coverings are NOT H&S law.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Reference Roundtuit's comment re turban wearing Sikhs and helmets the exception extends a little beyond firefighters:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/20/section/6/enacted

But, in general the exception for construction sites has been removed.

Correction:  Sikhs still have their exception Check the HSE view

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/sikhs-head-protection.htm 

Q. Are turban wearing sikhs exempt from the need to wear head protection in the workplace

"YES . Sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989 as amended by Section 6 of the Deregulation Act 2015 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any legal requirement to wear head protection at a workplace. A workplace is defined broadly and means any place where work is undertaken including any private dwelling, vehicle, aircraft, installation or moveable structure (including construction sites).

Sorry for deviating from the main thread

Edited by user 18 September 2020 19:09:46(UTC)  | Reason: typo

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Your logic would be fine when HM Gov were picking up the bill of employees sent home unable to work.

Now the retention scheme is winding up where is their pay going to come from?

What legitimate reason will you use for sending them home? Face coverings are NOT H&S law.

I never said at any point it was law in fact if you read my post, I clearly say it is not!

The OP has done their own assessment and decided that due to being closer than 2m then the 1m plus applies to them from the Government. List plus options

“Face coverings are mainly intended to protect others and not the wearer. The risk of COVID infection at work must be managed by following the right controls, including:

social distancing or, where that is not possible, reducing the number of people in the work area

high standards of hand hygiene

increasing surface washing

assigning and keeping people to shift teams

using screens and barriers to separate people from each other”

They go on to say

“There are some circumstances when wearing a face covering is required as a precautionary measure.”

I’m not in construction, but some research the Gov guidance updated last week continues to state that no additional PPE is required (Now we all agree that a face cover is not PPE as it is collective protection). However, they also say if closer than 2m you need something else as well. Things like barriers are not practical in construction, smaller teams yes but it seems like the op was refereeing to teams of two anyway. So, the OP having done their assessment, has used the only option left face cover / mask, which is being specified and suggested in other areas trains buses, shops, hair dressers for staff and customers etc.

So mixed messages from the Gov, what a surprise! And that it was obvious from the start that they would need to be closer than 2m without any help of what employers should do. For years the HSE have been ducking out of producing industry guidance and leaving it to specific industry bodies. Now the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) are recommending that construction workers in confined spaces and less than 2m wear face coverings. When you also have not been hearing those on the number 72 bus at 8:32 all have to isolate or the morning train from Piccadilly are having to isolate adds IMHO weight to the fact that face covers help. So not difficult to see how the OP got to where they are.

Who is going to pay the wages, well the furlough scheme is running out, but does last to the end of Oct, so another 6 weeks? Now who knows what measures if any the Gov will put in by then, or more likely we will be back in a national lockdown anyway. But if people are unable to meet your safety controls and no alternative work is available, then it is a harsh world.

The more interesting question is: Bill has a problem with face covers, Bob is ok with face covers and is overweight and diabetic. Bob refused to work with Bill because he is not wearing a face cover? Do you stop the job and send them both home with no pay, fail on your contract and kill your business or do you just send one home (which one?). Alternatively, you say no covers required as Gov say they are not required and cross your fingers. A third possibility Kate also has issues with face covers, so Kate and Bob become a working team and hope you have even numbers of those that have problems with covers.

The question remains the OP asked “what are others doing”

A further question is, will the HSE accept that small working teams, who are fixed (so not in different team next week) will they view that the plus in the 1m plus advice and so make wearing covers optional ( but as you protect others when wearing, then you still have the scenarios above)

Lastly, I note you didn’t actually say what you feel the OP should do?

Chris

Just going back to the OP.  Surely the idea of asking the employee to get a doctor's letter does 2 things - increases a burden on the doctor's services  and asks for something they can;t really provide a letter for.  That leads to a waste of time for the doctor and the employee along with loads of frustration.  
If the employee is goung to be asked for a Dr letter, you would have already had a good conversation with the employee.
Why not use that conversation as the satisfaction or otherwise that they don't need the face covering.  I might hazard the guess that someone in the hierachy is reluctant to say yah or nah and is passing the buck to the doctor.  

If I was forced to choose then it would be Bob with his underlying health issues going home as this would eliminate any possibility of work place exposure. His face covering is not providing personal protection and the efficiency of those coverings worn by others is questionable in the absence of any performance standard.

I had to visit a site. Temperature check was taken - I asked why. Was advised if I was 38 C I had COVID. It was lucky the temperature was 33 C - (this is hypotherma). I delayed entering site as I rushed carrying a larger back pack - so I belive I had elevated temperture. As I was a 'visitor' I had to wear a face coveing ALL THE TIME, when in office, WC, could not take fluid - as I was to be banned from site - if I removed the face covering. 

Two things - my view - a visitor was and would be all on site. Two if I could not take fluid - yes I could leave the site, however, I would not be allowed to return. 

I undertand about the temp being 33C - site management thought I was being akward and they said if I do not like it I should leave site.

http://www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/The-Use-of-Face-Coverings-in-Construction-during-Coronavirus.pdf

Another day, another update and yet another shift in position

Do have to ask though if my "face covering" visor is nothing more than a plastic sheet with headband not tested to any applicable harmonised European standard how is it PPE?

Near identical post in two different threads, three times - the point being?

Edited by user 29 September 2020 18:47:10(UTC)  | Reason: threads/posts