https://www.hse.gov.uk/ppe/ppe-regulations-2022.htm#duties

Interestingly the "status" of any worker is only determinable by a court or tribunal so it doesn't really matter what the hive deliberates on the forum. In effect we have an updated regulation intended to stop agencies charging staff they provide for PPE (the employer duty to provide PPE free of charge) but makes the person engaging the staff accountable for the risk assessment in the workplace and ensuring suitable provision.

TBH we are unlikely to alter current arrangements - temporary workers are recruited through the agency who have our requirements stipulated in the service contract which includes suitable footwear to satisfy our site Risk Assessment. Disposable PPE is readily available to everyone at site whilst our current agency like to issue Hi-Vis emblazoned with their logo & contact number.

For us this is more a reminder to ensure any future change in agency sees a like for like continuity in arrangements - no good getting a lower hourly staff rate to find we have to buy the boots.

Like R i read the regs and as they did not allter the way we work (we have PPE for agency and temp workers if needed) I did not consider it in depth. Some good legal lanuguage in these regs and what looks to be a change in definition of "worker". I did wonder if this was intended to catch a self employed person you may bring onto our site to do a task for us. Under the definition are they now our "Worker" and hence its upto us to make sure correct PPE is provided?

Sadly the HSE "simple" guidance is not very clear either.

I'm not sure if there is a simple answer to my question but with these changes next month does this give organisations the scope to change their terminology within their safety polices from 'employees' to 'workers' or is this change really only in regards to the supply of PPE to limb b workers and organisations should continue to keep their definitions of 'employees' and 'workers' separate?

I'm unsure if using the term 'worker' out with the PPE context would open a can of worms or not and any advice, information and thoughts would be appreciated. 

https://www.hse.gov.uk/vulnerable-workers/gig-agency-temporary-workers/employer/definitions.htm

Edited by user 15 March 2022 10:35:35(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I would keep them separate especially for items such as management systems where you are obliged to educate and inform your employees (the head count for charges) but not necessarily all those who may work at the premises or pensions where again there are obligations to your employees but not to all site workers.

Then of course there is the tongue in cheek that not all employees actually work.

Peter H - to be honest I don't see a lot of difference in the employer's duty whether it is to those on their payroll or those who work for them via an agency etc.

Assuming this is in the UK, then going back to the primary legislation, we have Section 2(1) of HSWA setting out the general duty of the employer to their employees and Section 3(1) the duty towards others, with each worded in almost identical terms.

Section 2(2) of HSWA expands on the general duty under Section 2(1) setting out examples of the coverage of Section 2(1) - if you look at HSE enforcement statistics e.g. at www.hse.gov.uk/prosecutions you will find that court proceedings are VERY rarely taken via Section 2(2).

Instead HSE goes via Section 2(1) and then often cites parts of Section 2(2) as the elements that are illustrative of breach of Section 2(1).

So, in terms of the education and training that has been referred to that is a paraphrasing of part of Section 2(2)(c).

But the requirements of Section 2(2)(c) have an implicit parallel in Section 3(1) - the only difference is that the words are not explicitly spelled out in a Section 3(3)(a)-(e) [which would also apply to the duty on the self-employed under Section 3(2) where appropriate]

Originally Posted by: JakeCampbell22

Hi,

Could I have some more advice on this please?

I work in an office and we have a window cleaner who comes here, a cleaner, a santisation person for the toilets and a forklift engineer who comes to fix the forklift everynow and then. Also if we were to have an AC company come out to fix our AC. To me this reads as we have to supply them with PPE and the traning of the PPE. Almost saying there employers may aswell send them with out PPE as we will have to supply it. Also this being that the two AC engineers would work at 4 differnt companys / sites that day and each one would have to supply PPE and training?

I think no, if they are carrying out the work for another business.  That is, you say "an AC company" so the person the AC company sends is not one of your workers - they are the AC company's worker. 

There isn't a contract between your company and the AC company's worker, I think (even an implied one) - the contracts are between your company and the AC company and between the AC company and the worker.

Further, the regs say: "undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual"  So even if your company's contracts are with the individual doing the work, if they are carrying on as a business undertaking, the regs don't apply. 

So if there's a company or a self-employed person with a business undertaking cleaning your windows, sanitising your toilets, and fixing your forklift, you don't need to provide the PPE.  If they are just general agency staff that you're asking to (e.g.) fix the forklift (!) then you probably do need to provide PPE.

All with a caveat of 'as I understand it', and we don't know for sure until something gets tested in court.

Good Morning All,

We currently have a contractor who has 2 or 3 of their employees that undertake a specifc daily task on our premises.  They can at times ,take direction from our staff, but the activity remains the same.

In this scenario would they be classed as limb (b) worker in your opinion ? 

The more i read, the more i think it would be the contractor to provide PPE.  Its not a major  issue for us to provide, but just trying get some clarity around it.

Thank you in advance.

MAT

Limb b is more about casual workers who might be classed as self employed for things like tax but work directly for you.