Personal protective equipment

The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (PPE Regulations) require employers to:

• assess risks and select suitable protection;

• ensure all personal protective equipment (PPE) is maintained, cleaned or replaced as appropriate, and kept in efficient working order and in good repair;

• accommodate PPE to protect it from contamination, dirt, loss or damage; and

• inform and train employees about PPE use and maintenance.

The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002, place a duty on any responsible person who sells PPE to comply with certain requirements. The regulations also contain rules about the external organisations allowed to test and certify PPE.

A case at the House of Lords limited the extent of the duty to maintain PPE:

But in contrast, in a 2011 ruling, the High Court decided that employers should provide employees working in damp conditions for prolonged periods with protective clothing, even if there was no expert or other evidence to confirm risk of injury:

Any PPE provided must be suitable. It is unsuitable if it is badly fitted, uncomfortable, puts a strain on wearers or makes the work unnecessarily difficult. Employers must take all reasonable steps to ensure employees use PPE properly. It is not enough just to make PPE available to staff. Employees must use PPE in accordance with training and instructions given. They must also be involved in the selection of PPE, and should be given an informed choice where possible. All PPE must be provided free of charge to workers.

The HSE advises that PPE must be treated as a “last resort”, rather than a quick or cheap method of controlling risks. There may well be a better solution, for example, improving ventilation, changing the way the job is done, or improving guards on machinery. Sometimes PPE will still be needed in addition to other improvements (see examples in Chapter 6: Hazardous substances).

PPE is not suitable unless the period for which it is worn is considered, and the characteristics of the workstation of each person are taken into account. The HSE also states that, in the interests of hygiene, PPE should be provided for use only by the person at risk.

Employers must make information available to employees on the risks controlled by PPE, and on any actions taken to ensure the equipment is in good working order.

Employers must organise demonstrations showing how to wear PPE “where appropriate, and at suitable intervals”.

Agency workers and PPE

Agency workers have the same rights to be provided with properly fitting PPE as directly employed workers, at the cost of the employer. Construction workers’ union UCATT called on the HSE to take action after becoming increasingly alarmed that many employment agencies require construction workers to supply their own PPE, or charge the worker if they supply it.

Unions highlight PPE problems

UCATT also warned its members to ensure that their personal protective equipment (PPE) is genuine, following concerns that fake PPE, including hard hats and safety gloves, has been found on building sites.

This followed a warning from the TUC that counterfeit PPE is on the increase, with well-established products, brands and designs the primary target. The TUC guide, Checking your personal protective equipment — Guidance for safety reps, reports that in some sectors over half the products tested were fake, and that although the biggest problems are in construction and transport, any industry can be affected.

It advises reps: “All items of PPE that are placed on the European market are obliged to carry the CE mark [indicating compliance with EU legislation] and therefore must fulfil numerous basic health and safety requirements laid down by the PPE Directive. If there is any doubt, make sure that your employer contacts the supplier and asks for an EC Declaration of Conformity or EC-Type Examination Certificate for the specific product in question. These are a legal requirement and are issued by bodies approved by the European Commission.”

UCATT also raised the alarm about PPE being sold through vending machines and called on the HSE to ban this practice as PPE should be provided to workers (including agency workers) free of charge. The union is also concerned that workers will not be able to try on the PPE, that they may purchase poorly-fitting equipment which can be as dangerous as not wearing PPE at all, and that supplying PPE through a vending machine appears to breach the legal requirement for employers to carry out a risk assessment before supplying PPE.

The union carried out an online survey of around 750 of its members and reported in December 2014 that despite it being a legal requirement for an employer to supply workers with PPE, 8% of respondents said that it was not supplied by their employer. Where PPE was supplied, a further 15% reported it was not regularly replaced and did not meet their workplace needs.

Ill-fitting PPE

Public services union UNISON member, Anthony Roach, worked for Stockton Borough Council in its Neighbourhood Services team. He wore body armour to protect him against stabbings. He worked 11-hour shifts, wearing the body armour at all times, but it was faulty, second-hand and badly fitting and as a result he developed back and shoulder pain. He and colleagues complained but nothing was done to resolve the problem and eventually Mr Roach had to be placed on light duties. Mr Roach was awarded £2,000 compensation for his employer’s failure to provide adequate PPE.

In another case involving ill-fitting PPE, a traffic officer for the Highways Agency Traffic Information Services, Deborah Allen, a member of the Public and Commercial Services union, was awarded £3,600 after unsuitable footwear meant she developed Achilles tendonitis and was off work for three months. She told her employers that she suffered from eczema and that the synthetic boots they supplied would worsen her condition, and her GP also wrote to her employers. But she was told she must wear the work boots, rather than her own leather boots. As a result her feet became so painful that she could not walk.

TUC survey reveals workers forced to pay for PPE

A 2012 TUC survey found that more than one in five workers are being forced to pay for PPE out of their own pocket. More than 20% of respondents said that they had to pay for providing or replacing all or some of the equipment they needed for their work.

Women workers were even less likely than men to have their safety equipment provided, with more than 15% having to provide all or some of their own PPE, usually foot protection or overalls — compared to 10.5% of men.

Even where the employer provided PPE, the survey found that the worker usually had to clean the equipment themselves or pay for it to be cleaned. Of those whose equipment needed cleaning, more than three in five (60%) claimed that their employer made no arrangements for providing, or paying the cost of, cleaning.

It is illegal for an employer to charge for any safety equipment. The law also says that every employer has to ensure that any PPE provided to their employees is maintained (including replaced or cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.

TUC footwear guidance

The TUC guide for safety representatives on feet and footwear, Working feet and footwear, advises that employers must ensure that their risk assessment includes risks to the feet as well as slipping risks. The guidance is on the TUC safety website at: www.tuc.org.uk/extras/footwear.pdf

A new draft European PPE directive would mean that companies selling PPE would have to keep records about their stock and ensure products meet required standards if it is adopted.