Right regulation 12 of  COSHH includes a requirement to provide (a) details of the substances hazardous to health to which the employee is liable to be exposed . Now it does not say specifically how these details are to be conveyed to employees but rather than rely on the language of dance let’s say you could argue that the best way to provide this information would be through the use of labels and to make sure it was clear the labels should approximate to the standard ones under CLP. Now imagine what would happen if there was an incident caused by an employee using the wrong substance because it was in poorly labelled container. If the HSE inspector suggested that proper labelling may have prevented an accident you should not be telling them that labelling of decanted substances  is not a strict legal requirement. They would turn around and tell you that it is reasonably  practicable to do this and therefore you should do this.   

Edited by user 10 February 2022 13:25:52(UTC)  | Reason: missing w rds

I remember right back at the outset of COSHH having to trawl through the back of laboratory cupboards in order to generate an inventory made all the more difficult by so many small jars with either no label or faded hand writing.

CLP requires all supply containers to be labelled and it would be a poor employer who permitted unidentified packages in the workplace - there are still companies out there where it is common to find some quite nasty substances in old coffee jars because the wide neck is convenient.

There is however a dispensation in the regulation for smaller supply packages including concepts such as fold out labels - consolidated text:

http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e3f31046-b274-11eb-8aca-01aa75ed71a1.0013.02/DOC_1

ECHA guidance is a bit easier to follow:

https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/2324906/clp_labelling_en.pdf/89628d94-573a-4024-86cc-0b4052a74d65

Internally I would have the product name - for identification, signal word and pictogram(s) for employee awareness although rather than filling 50ml containers I would probably look at alternative handling such as a Winchester c/w metered dispenser at point of use.

Decent labelling on all containers of substances such as test reagents is Good Laboratory Practice - your R&D lead should be instilling this in the workforce.

When I worked in labs, it was just standard practice to label (at least with its name) anything that we decanted into a bottle and put aside for later use. We wouldn't though normally label a beaker that we decanted something into for immediate use on the bench.

There are packs of little GHS hazard stickers you can get from laboratory suppliers if you want to indicate the hazards as well as the name.  I consider this a good practice.  

One of the problems if you are using solvents is that they have a tendency to get on to the labels and dissolve either the ink or the glue.  You need the right kind of label to prevent this.  You can get purpose-made, pre-labelled squeezy bottles for common solvents like acetone.

Like Kate, when years ago I worked in a laboratory (Aerosol R&D) we had about 1500 containers (mainly jam jar type) of decanted substances.

All were labelled with a number (that matched the MSDS file) and name of the substance made of the old fashioned Dymo raised letter tape so the solvent issue Kate mentions was eliminated/reduced.  The, good old, black on orange hazard labels were also attached.

This was 30 years ago.