Thought I might keep readers informed of developments in the Unions pursuit of the provision of PPE by the employers.
Well you were right the HSE do sit on the fence.
Firstly they say PPE, should be provided by the employer and that employees should not have to pay for their own PPE, and followed by the statement where a contractor does not provide PPE for its employees they are in breach of the 1992 PPE Regulations.
They have stated in correspondence and I quote, where an individual wishes to provide their own PPE for a variety of reasons and provided it is serviced and suitable the HSE does not object to the practise.
Now my members do work in a specialist industry where some of the PPE can prove expensive but does that statement above not open a very large can of worms in that those employers who wish to negate any responsibility towards the provision of any PPE can ask the employee to provide it.
Given the failure of the HSE to both interpret and implement the full meanings of the HSWA 74 Section 9, the PPE at Work Regulations 1992 and the PPE Regulations 2002, the RMT has made the decision that the best course of action to bring the matter into the public domain and to seek representation from the twenty five sponsored MPs at the next committee meeting and ask them to make representation to the Secretary of State to reply to the matter or to bring the matter to public attention by asking the question in the House of Commons.
Watch this space
PPE legal problem
Moderator: Moderators
-
cybermedic
- Student
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:00 pm
- 17
- Occupation: HSE Manager
- Location: Sunny Baku
Re: PPE legal problem
Hi Gents
The issue of Diving suits being PPE.
All companies working in this area working in the UK and worldwide except the gulf of mexico provide divers with all their equipment. The only thing the divers are expected to supply is the under garments when wearing Hot Water suits & Dry Suits.
This all came about because a number of divers died who many years ago supplied their own equipment for which they were responsible for servicing, on investigation following their death it was found the equipment had infact not been serviced correctly.
The indusrty then had a total change in mind set & this with the introduction of H&S legislation meant the companier were responsible for providing & servicing of such equipment. Its not generelly considered PPE such as Coveralls, Hard Hat etc but essential equipment to allow them to carry out their job. The only area that I'm aware of is in the US where the diver still supplies his own equipment but this is down to the US Laws and companys not being seen as taking responsibility in their compensation culture.
If any of the Main players work out in the GOM they do still supply the equipment.
Some of the smaller Civils companies maybe expect the divers to supply their own suits but will almost certanly supply the rst of the equipment.
No company ive worked for has ever refused to supply the diving suits.
Colin
The issue of Diving suits being PPE.
All companies working in this area working in the UK and worldwide except the gulf of mexico provide divers with all their equipment. The only thing the divers are expected to supply is the under garments when wearing Hot Water suits & Dry Suits.
This all came about because a number of divers died who many years ago supplied their own equipment for which they were responsible for servicing, on investigation following their death it was found the equipment had infact not been serviced correctly.
The indusrty then had a total change in mind set & this with the introduction of H&S legislation meant the companier were responsible for providing & servicing of such equipment. Its not generelly considered PPE such as Coveralls, Hard Hat etc but essential equipment to allow them to carry out their job. The only area that I'm aware of is in the US where the diver still supplies his own equipment but this is down to the US Laws and companys not being seen as taking responsibility in their compensation culture.
If any of the Main players work out in the GOM they do still supply the equipment.
Some of the smaller Civils companies maybe expect the divers to supply their own suits but will almost certanly supply the rst of the equipment.
No company ive worked for has ever refused to supply the diving suits.
Colin
Re: PPE legal problem
Personally I side with the divers. PPE is PPE and section 9 of HASAWA states says that no charge can be levied for anything provided in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevent statutory provisions.
If the HSE are happy that local arrangements can be made between employers and employees then that is fine but it does not necessarily follow that unwilling employees can be forced to pay on the strength that others are allowed to which is clearly against the spirit of the law. There is a bit of a difference between a few bob a week to cover the cost of boots and the cost of a full set of diving/radiation/fireproof equipment.
This is obviously one of those cases which is calling out to be hammered out in court and would probably go to the highest levels due to the employers unwillingness to commit themselves to the major expense of supplying the diving suits however I think that, even if won, victory would be hollow as all it would achieve is to force a change in the employment status of divers from employed to self-employed.
What is clear is that our existing employment laws have not kept pace with changes in the way people work and need a serious overhaul in order that situations like this, and that of agency workers, are clarified.
If the HSE are happy that local arrangements can be made between employers and employees then that is fine but it does not necessarily follow that unwilling employees can be forced to pay on the strength that others are allowed to which is clearly against the spirit of the law. There is a bit of a difference between a few bob a week to cover the cost of boots and the cost of a full set of diving/radiation/fireproof equipment.
This is obviously one of those cases which is calling out to be hammered out in court and would probably go to the highest levels due to the employers unwillingness to commit themselves to the major expense of supplying the diving suits however I think that, even if won, victory would be hollow as all it would achieve is to force a change in the employment status of divers from employed to self-employed.
What is clear is that our existing employment laws have not kept pace with changes in the way people work and need a serious overhaul in order that situations like this, and that of agency workers, are clarified.
When in danger, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. 
Re: PPE legal problem
Well it took a while and the end result was a compromise on the issue with both the RMT and the HSE agreeing to a joint campaign to make the diving employers aware of their legal duties to supply Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) will be as follows;
Action to be implemented by the RMT
• RMT members to be contacted to obtain any specific complaints in relation to PPE amongst divers. The complaints to be forwarded to HSE.
• The RMT will use Union and Trade press to highlight PPE issues to the diving community.
• A list of employers not complying with PPE regulations to be forwarded to HSE by the RMT
• Awareness of PPE issues, duties and obligations to be raised across the Diving Community.
Action to be implemented by the HSE
•Inspectors to be informed of PPE issues raised by RMT. These to be raised by Inspectors during inspections/investigations.
• Awareness of PPE issues, duties and obligations to be raised across the Diving Community via trade, industry and H&S committees, for example but in particular: ADC, Diving Industry Committee, Recreational Diving Forum, Dive shows, 'Sea Work' trade show
• Diving Industry to be aware of PPE regulations. HSE stands at trade shows will inform the industry of their obligations
• Best Practices among conforming employers to be recognised, promoted and distributed across the industry.
• PPE issues to be raised at all Diving Industry meetings were parties are in attendance.
The provision of Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) is a subject which was raised by members of the RMT, who asked, who was the responsible party for the provision of PPE which includes Diving suits, Thermal protective wear and diving gloves.
After much debate with the HSE over this issue, it was agreed that where a person was classed as an employee within the meaning if employment law, not fiscal law, those persons must have the PPE supplied by the employer in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 74) and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE).
The RMT pointed out very strongly that the starting point in reviewing the requirements for the diving contractor to provide PPE under regulations is to decide whether the worker is an employee or not, as many of the statutory duties is owed exclusively to employees and by employers.
To emphasis the principal of whether divers are employed or self employed the RMT submitted the following information from case and statute law which is attached to this forum message and would be of use to others in helping decide whether a worker is an employee or self employed and the HSE presented no corresponding case to prove different.
The campaign will start in earnest some time in the spring once the RMT have finalised other ongoing issues.
Regards Derek Moore
Action to be implemented by the RMT
• RMT members to be contacted to obtain any specific complaints in relation to PPE amongst divers. The complaints to be forwarded to HSE.
• The RMT will use Union and Trade press to highlight PPE issues to the diving community.
• A list of employers not complying with PPE regulations to be forwarded to HSE by the RMT
• Awareness of PPE issues, duties and obligations to be raised across the Diving Community.
Action to be implemented by the HSE
•Inspectors to be informed of PPE issues raised by RMT. These to be raised by Inspectors during inspections/investigations.
• Awareness of PPE issues, duties and obligations to be raised across the Diving Community via trade, industry and H&S committees, for example but in particular: ADC, Diving Industry Committee, Recreational Diving Forum, Dive shows, 'Sea Work' trade show
• Diving Industry to be aware of PPE regulations. HSE stands at trade shows will inform the industry of their obligations
• Best Practices among conforming employers to be recognised, promoted and distributed across the industry.
• PPE issues to be raised at all Diving Industry meetings were parties are in attendance.
The provision of Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) is a subject which was raised by members of the RMT, who asked, who was the responsible party for the provision of PPE which includes Diving suits, Thermal protective wear and diving gloves.
After much debate with the HSE over this issue, it was agreed that where a person was classed as an employee within the meaning if employment law, not fiscal law, those persons must have the PPE supplied by the employer in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA 74) and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE).
The RMT pointed out very strongly that the starting point in reviewing the requirements for the diving contractor to provide PPE under regulations is to decide whether the worker is an employee or not, as many of the statutory duties is owed exclusively to employees and by employers.
To emphasis the principal of whether divers are employed or self employed the RMT submitted the following information from case and statute law which is attached to this forum message and would be of use to others in helping decide whether a worker is an employee or self employed and the HSE presented no corresponding case to prove different.
The campaign will start in earnest some time in the spring once the RMT have finalised other ongoing issues.
Regards Derek Moore
- Attachments
-
- Employee or self employed.doc
- Is the worker and employee or self employed
- (67 KiB) Downloaded 339 times
