In the military there is a requirement for them to maintain personal fitness to meet certain fitness criteria. If a gym is provided by a civilian service provider to enable them to use the equipment free of charge would this fall under the requirements of PUWER as effectively this would be work equipment? There is also an arguement that this could also come under LOLER for items such as multigyms where cables provide a viable link to the weight system. I have no doubt this has been asked previously but any thoughts?

Going with Brian on this one.

Your scenario describes private provision by others who are not the users direct employer.

The provider is effectivley inviting members of the public to use equipment they are responsible for.

They would be responsible for the upkeep of the facilities together with any equipment and should have suitable Public Liability cover.

Ain't no gym I know applying LOLER to multigyms...

It's not likely to be considered as lifting equipment under the Regs. But otherwise agree that should consider the elements of PUWER and work on that basis.

Once the employer decides to provide a piece of equipment in the workplace (whether by choice or obligation) they will have to consider their responsibilities for looking after it.

Hi Clive.

The UK military have very few exemptions or exceptions to UK health and safety law other than that the Crown is immune from prosecution, instead facing the prospect of a slap on the wrist from the regulator or e.g. a "Crown Prohibition or Improvement Notice" where the regulator is HSE.

So, in practice that the users of this gym work for the military makes little difference.

I am guessing that the user's employer has a contract with the gym company to make its facilities available to the users (for free).

So, then there might be some duty of care on the employer to exercise some oversight of health and safety standards relevant to whatever contract is awarded. No real difference from their buying ANYTHING else for their staff.

As example, if the MOD were buying in chicken sarnies in quantities for their staff, and the supplier's food hygiene was seriously remiss, when a military worker ended up with food poisoning due to salmonella there is a very good chance that they would sue their employer (with deep pockets) as well as the supplier (whose pockets might have holes in them).

So, perhaps you should be asking the procurement people what standards are specified in contract.

P 

It's not work equipment though is it ?

and lets face it, the military don't do PUWER inspections on their rifles and cannons which ARE actually their work equipment

Surely Maintenance in accordance with the Manufacturers Instructions Manual is adequate, and Use in accordance with the Manufacturers Instructions manual would be the same

and most gyms now give you a one to one induction on how to use the equipment before they let you loose on it, which you sign for having received.

Edited by user 25 April 2022 15:20:27(UTC)  | Reason: typo change

Originally Posted by: Mark-W

They are behind the wire and not open to the general public.

Interesting - the location was not mentioned by the OP

You can also equipments provided by: https://labslondon.com/

It might be useful here to quote verbatim the workplace duties imposed upon the MOD as set out by the Court of Appeal in Smith v MOD & Others [2012] EWCA Civ 1365:

1. It is beyond dispute, and the MOD did not purport to dispute, that it owed a duty of care at common law to members of the armed forces as their employer. Nor was it disputed that health and safety provisions contained in Sections 2-4 and 6-7 of the Health and Safety Act 1974 and in Regulations made under Section 15 imposed statutory duties on the MOD. For example, it is required to secure suitable personal protective clothing and adequate information, instruction and training about such equipment under the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, to construct or adapt work equipment so that it is fit for purpose under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to health and safety, and to secure adequate health and safety training on recruitment, or when exposed to new or increased risks, under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999. The territorial scope of those Regulations is limited to Great Britain (Section 84(1), extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council under Section 84(3) of the 1974 Act).
2. The employer's duty of care, at common law and statutory duties imposed under Regulation, have been deployed against the MOD in numerous previous cases: in Chalk [2002] EWHC 422 (QB) (injury caused by avalanche to member of a RAF rescue team on training exercise), Fawdry [2003] EWHC 322 (QB) (ill-fitting helmet causing injury on exercise to trainee at Sandhurst), Hanks [2005] EWHC (injury to neck caused by breach of the 1992 Regulations during naval flight training exercise), Hopps [2009] EWHC 1881 (QB)(electrical engineer, working under the protection of the MOD in Iraq, injured by IED due to failure to provide suitable armoured vehicle). Most of these cases failed on their facts, but their significance lies in the MOD's acceptance of the duties alleged.

It is clear, therefore, that PUWER applies to the MOD both on and off MOD premises. According to paragraph 17 of the ACoP the definition of work equipment "is extremely wide..." and covers almost all equipment used at work and is therefore likely to encompass gym equipment.  Further, an employee is at work "throughout the time when he is in the course of his employment..."(para 23)  So it follows that if MOD personel are directed to the gym to maintain their fitness levels during working hours they are at work. If, on the other hand, they do so in their own personal time, they will not be at work and PUWER will not apply.  Further, PUWER applies to people who have control of work equipment (para 25) in this case the gym operator as well as the MOD. Their duties cover both their own employees and other workers who may be affected i.e. the forces personel using the gym.  There should be co-operation and co-ordination of activities to meet duties under PUWER where multiple employers and employees work (para 29). In addition, on multi-occupancy sites where several duty holders share equipment there should be agreement amonst the parties regarding compliance with PUWER (para 32). Consequently, in this instance, I would expect to find clauses in the contract between MOD and the gym operator about responsibilities under PUWER because although the gym may be operated by a contractor, the building and equipment inside may be owned by either party.

For completeness, I would add that reg. 36 of PUWER grants the Secretary of State power to exempt the armed forces from PUWER "by certificate in writing..." although I doubt such an exemption will be in force.

accendia...don't...the reference to Iraq and PUWER is a red herring...read the question...

the equipment isn't being provided for work purposes - the guys are required to keep fit...they could run on the road. Not PUWER...the civilian provider is merely ensuring that the equipment is provided, purchased and maintained in line with the manufacturers instructions and that falls to the product safety regulations 2005...which only requires them to be safe in their normal or foreseeable usage...

Originally Posted by: Jane Tomlinson

You can also equipments provided by

NOW reported