Once again our Judiciary covers itself in glory and proves how out of touch they are with reality.

IF, as stated, a Covid mask is PPE then perhaps they can enlighten the whole of Europe as to which harmonsied standard such a device should be manufactured in accordance with to comply with the PPE regulations - lord knows it has long been debated on these forums.

Yes, I saw  that...

Well of course they are wrong its not PPE as PPE is what protects the wearer from  the hazard  not bystanders from the hazard caused by the wearer.   The case if you hadn’t read  it is about a lorry driver who was told that he had to wear a face covering on a site he was visiting  even while he was in his cab. He refused and so was kicked off the site. His employer then sacked him as the company’s main business was making deliveries to that site. He argued that he was not obliged to  wear the mask while has was in the cab. Interestingly the manager of the site was an expert in the spread of covid 19 when he tried to explain why he insisted that the guy  wear the mask in the cab:”  ‘with no mask on, all the droplets from his mouth as he spoke were going to land on people’s faces due to his elevated position up in the cab’.” Well of course he was not but that’s what he said.

The whole thing is a bit amateurish but essentially it boils down to whether  the request to wear a face covering was reasonable. Its a bit like those sites where they insist that if you don’t wear full PPE at all times you will be told to leave. From the H&S point it might not make sense but it can be regarded as a reasonable request and  so  they are in their right to insist that you comply. As its only an employment tribunal it will not establish any sort of binding precedent so face covering will not be treated a PPE  in future legal cases.

Originally Posted by: stevedm

yet again there is glossing over a wee bit of detail here...the tribunal didn't say covid mask was ppe

The judgement conclusions describe the incident as "a single incident of refusing to comply with a PPE instruction", so actually yes the tribunal does describe it as a PPE matter.

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

I read the case notes it is seems that whether or not face coverings were/are PPE was not relevant to whether the tribunal upheld his dismissal.

I agree that the tribunal reasoning was that it was about failing to comply with an instruction.  I'm less convinced that it's irrelevant whether it was or not PPE - the 'Driver's Handbook', which is a key document and cited in the 'Findings of fact' is quoted as requiring that "customer instruction regarding PPE requirement must be followed", so if the mask was not PPE, the driver was not in breach of that requirement.

The driver was less clearly in breach of the other stated company rules (from the 'Employee Handbook') - "be courteous and pleasant to clients/suppliers at all times" and "all reasonable steps to safeguard your own health and safety and that of any other person".

The respondent's submission highlighted only that the 'Driver Handbook' contained "an obligation to follow health and safety instructions on customer sites".  This is a broadened definition from what is actually quoted, and does not reference the general Employee's Handbook requirements. (Though I note there is an alternate submission about the subsequent site ban, this is explicity stated as not the factor with most weight).

I remain of the opinion that this tribunal finding depends upon an assumption that a face covering is PPE.

Thinking about this there is only one legal definition of PPE and that is in the PPE regs: “personal protective equipment” means all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety, and any addition or accessory designed to meet that objective.” -So it protects the wearer from the risk.  I can’t see any court upto and including the Supreme Court changing this definition to include face covering to prevent the spread of  Covid-19.

We forbid the wearing of shorts at our sites.

The Post Office uniform includes shorts.

We are a Post Office "customer".

Based on the logic in your post ......

This is the long standing problem with having made public health an H&S issue - you need clear unambiguous regulation properly enacted and not at the knee jerk reactions of clip board clowns or PCSO's.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

We forbid the wearing of shorts at our sites.

The Post Office uniform includes shorts.

We are a Post Office "customer".

Based on the logic in your post ......

Quite frankly, yes you can tell the post office worker they are not allowed on your site with shorts on, your site, your rules. Whether this would result in the sacking of the worker is unlikely, as I am sure the Post Office aren't too bothered if you don't receive your parcels, as they already got paid, and you have an alternative (collect them/drop them off yourself).

And let us not forget the driver, in this instance, was given a mask to wear as he entered the site. So this would be akin to you given the postal worker some over trousers to wear for their safety and them refusing them.

You could argue that a requirement for posties not to wear shorts on site is not a reasonable request bit it is also complicated by the fact that the person receiving the mail is not actually a “customer”. The post office , privatisation not withstanding” is statutory common carrier which means that they by law must deliver letters to each and every address and you must allow them to do so, whether or not  they are wearing shorts.

The handbook stated

"The company's success is built upon its relationship with its clients/suppliers. You should, therefore, be courteous and pleasant to clients/suppliers at all times. Rudeness or off-hand treatment of clients/suppliers will not be tolerated, however badly the client/supplier may have behaved. If the relationship between yourself and a client/suppliers is deteriorating you should immediately seek the help of your line manager."

The driver was rude and discourteous. If he had a problem he should he spoken to his line manger when he returned. His behaviour meant that he was banned from a site, which meant there was no job for him.

As stated before, it was his misconduct and lack of remorse that cost him his job, not his failure to wear the face covering. If the driver had behaved the same way over a different issue the outcome would have been the same.

We are a "customer" of the Post Office as there is a collection contract for our business mail.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

a requirement for posties not to wear shorts on site is not a reasonable request

Thanks for spotting the real point - when seeking dimissal grounds must be both reasonable and lawful.

As to remorse if you have, in your mind, done nothing wrong how do you show remorse?

As with many cases, the facts and investigation showed a blurred picture, and the tribunal had to derive some sort of conclusion from this. Did I detect an error in employment date in the judgment? Tut, tut. Anyway, the mention of PPE shows an appalling level of understanding by the tribunal, not that I'm surprised at this. Tribunals are heavily weighted against the employee. The organisation can engage legal representation, whereas the ex-employee will be unable to do this. Until the tribunals achieve a level playing field in this regard, their judgments will always be questionable.

Legal representation is permitted, but not affordable, for the typical ex-employee who after all has recently lost their job and their income with it.

I've only skim read the comments, but doesnt a piece of PPE have to have CE status and comply with regulations which are proven by testing and science to work? I dont think a face covering made from a table cloth will pass any testing.

Suppliers need to comply with the Personal Protective Equipment (Enforcement) Regulations 2018, which state that any PPE put on the market needs to be CE marked etc but  the PPE at Work regs which define the employer’s responsibility to supply to workers simply state that any PPE supplied must be suitable and ,of course as with any H&S requirement, it is for the employer to prove that, that is the case.