PPE law

Stephen93

I work in forestry for the same company for the last 6 months. I was on trial for the first few weeks and obviously was kept on.

I supplied my own protective boots trousers and helmet during trial and I am still using them now. They said they would be provided and after asking I'm still waiting.

My question is my current boots were like new when I started and cost say €250 and are good quality. After using them all this time the sole is now coming off. The company want to replace my boots with a cheap pair which are much poorer quality but will offer basic protection.

Should they have to replace my boots like for like?

TIA

Samuel T. Cogley

I'd say once the basics of Health and Safety are met that's all you're entitled to. I understand where you're coming from - PPE would be supplied and it wasn't but I'd say your recourse there is looking for them to pay for the wear and tear on your personal PPE.

jimmycrackcorm

Stephen93 wrote: »

I work in forestry for the same company for the last 6 months. I was on trial for the first few weeks and obviously was kept on.

I supplied my own protective boots trousers and helmet during trial and I am still using them now. They said they would be provided and after asking I'm still waiting.

My question is my current boots were like new when I started and cost say €250 and are good quality. After using them all this time the sole is now coming off. The company want to replace my boots with a cheap pair which are much poorer quality but will offer basic protection.

Should they have to replace my boots like for like?

TIA

If you had bought diamond-encrusted boots costing a million, do you think you should get like for like? Or do you think perhaps they just have to supply boots to fit the purpose?

Stephen93

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'd say once the basics of Health and Safety are met that's all you're entitled to. I understand where you're coming from - PPE would be supplied and it wasn't but I'd say your recourse there is looking for them to pay for the wear and tear on your personal PPE.

Thanks for reply.

Are they legally required to pay for the wear and tear?

sham58107

No being smart, but if you paid €250 for boots and less than 6 months later the sole is coming off, I would return to where you bought them.

Samuel T. Cogley

Stephen93 wrote: »

Thanks for reply.

Are they legally required to pay for the wear and tear?

I can't advise you there I'm afraid, admittedly I don't know, but legal advice is forbidden here. You'd probably have more luck writing it off against tax if that's possible and that's just a suggestion for the sake of discussion, again I don't know for sure.

I appreciate I've been as useful as a chocolate teapot. :pac:

kirving

sham58107 wrote: »

No being smart, but if you paid €250 for boots and less than 6 months later the sole is coming off, I would return to where you bought them.

10 hours per day, 6 months, 5 days per week is 1300 hours, possibly more of hard graft, over winter, in a forest. Not too bad in my book to be honest.

I knew someone training at a very high level as a race walker, their shoes would last about a month apparently.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for top quality gear, given the nature of the jobs.

Del2005

Kevin Irving wrote: »

10 hours per day, 6 months, 5 days per week is 1300 hours, possibly more of hard graft, over winter, in a forest. Not too bad in my book to be honest.

I knew someone training at a very high level as a race walker, their shoes would last about a month apparently.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for top quality gear, given the nature of the jobs.

Comparing light weight sports shoes to safety boots is like comparing apples and oranges. I doubt many builders are going through rigger boots every 6 months.

You can ask all you want but if they supply equipment which meets the standards required, and fit correctly, then you'll have to buy your own fancy PPE and make sure that it's meets the correct standard as you'll have a problem if you get injured wearing it.

Peregrinus

Kevin Irving wrote: »

10 hours per day, 6 months, 5 days per week is 1300 hours, possibly more of hard graft, over winter, in a forest. Not too bad in my book to be honest.

I knew someone training at a very high level as a race walker, their shoes would last about a month apparently.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for top quality gear, given the nature of the jobs.

If the employer is paying for equipment, it's the employers call whether to pay for cheap equipment and replace it frequently or expensive equipment and replace it less frequently. As long as the equipment is fit for purpose it's nothing to the employee.

jimmycrackcorm

Stephen93 wrote: »

Thanks for reply.

Are they legally required to pay for the wear and tear?

I'll be smart.
If one of your boot diamonds comes off, then no, they don't have to replace it.
if on the other hand, they supply you with boots that provide you with H&S protection and the sole comes off, then yes they have to provide a replacement.

Peregrinus

I think we may be confusing two separate issues here.

Let's assume that it's a term of the OP's contract that, as a permanent employee, the employer is to provide the safety equipment/clothing needed for the job, including boots.

First question: do they have to provide him with top-of-the-line boots? Answer: No. Any boots that meet the required safety standards and are reasonably adequate for the demands of the job will do.

Second question: If they fail to provide him with boots, and as a result he has to supply his own, is he entitled to have those boots paid for? Answer: Not if he buys better/more expensive boots than the job reasonably requires. But he's on slightly stronger grounds here, because in failing to supply boot the employer was - on the assumption stated above - in breach of contract. The employee had to deal with that by providing boots at his own expense, and then seeking reimbursement. How was the employee to know what boots the employer would or wouldn't reimburse him for? So if the employee went out and bought a pair of boots that were pretty good (but not actually diamond-studded) he can reasonably say "I was put in this position by your breach of contract. You need to deal reasaonbly with me so that I am not disadvantaged by your breach. It was not unreasonable of me to expect that you would reimburse me for these boots. Shell out." I think if he bought a pair of boots to substitute for the boots the employer should have supplied but didn't, he's entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of a pair of boots that are reasonably appropriate to the job, and that's not capped at the cost of the boots the employer would have supplied.

Different story if the employee already owned a pair of boots, and simply used these until the employer came through with standard-issue boots. He didn't choose or buy those boots in the expectation of being reimbursed for them, or with an eye to what reimbursement he might reasonably expect. Furthermore he didn't buy the boots for his employer's benefit, or because the employer was in breach of contract; he bought them for his own purposes, and they were not new when he brought them to the job. So he can't expect to be fully reimbursed for the cost.

Victor

On a less serious note ...

PFY = Pimply-Faced-Youth

http://freakzero.com/up/bofh.pdf

The Bastard Operator From Hell - The Complete Edition wrote:

4.7 The B.O.F.H. won’t ’wear’ the Boss’s ideas ...

Something smells fishy. Very fishy indeed. Positively tuna casserole.

The boss is in a good mood. Almost radiant, in fact. It can only bode bad tidings, especially as his phone log notes that he’s been talking to one of the company lawyers.

Sadly, the text of the conversation was lost due to an oversight on the part of the PFY, who forgot to change the tapes on the voice recorder. A mistake he won’t be making twice if the power stapler has anything to do with it ...

It’s obvious something’s up - he’s scheduled a meeting with us at 10.30am, a time normally quite unknown to us.

The smug expression on his face leaves me in no doubt that he feels his position is unassailable.

”Gentlemen,” he says, with an uncharacteristic show of camaraderie, ”Why don’t you take an hour’s unpaid leave to go and get changed?”

The PFY is in like a shot.

”And why don’t you take an hour’s paid leave to go and get f...”

”I’M SORRY?!” I interrupt, saving the PFY from the quagmire of disciplinary action, ”As you’re well aware, we’re
permitted to wear attire applicable to the nature of our position.”

”Unless”, the boss says, holding up a heavily highlighted copy of a contract not unlike the ones signed when we joined the company, ”your position involves interaction with ...”

He pauses for a moment, giving us time to fill in the blank whilst simultaneously savouring every millisecond ...
”... begins with C ...”, he adds, ”... ends with S ...”

Neither the PFY nor I are forthcoming, so the boss finishes.

”CLIENTS.”

”Oh,” says the PFY. ”That wasn’t the C word I was thinking of. But I think we’re talking about the same people
though ...”

I cut through the PFY’s bolshiness and come straight to the point.

”We don’t deal with clients,” I explain, as if I’m talking to a simple-minded child.

”AHEM,” the Boss replies, priming the bombshell he has hidden. ”As of the initiation of our ISO and Advanced
Helpdesk Initiatives, the helpdesk and support staff are now officially your clients.” His smug expression says it all.

He’s been doing his homework on this one.

”And you suggest?” I ask

”Standard client representative dress. Suit...”

The PFY gasps.

”...business shirt, tie...”

I suppress the gag reflex in my throat.

”...and of course hard-soled shoes, preferably leather.”

”Well,” I rally, ”it’s not often we agree on things, but I’d have to admit you do have a point. I’ll be ready by the
morning.”

The PFY’s widened eyes lead me to believe he doubts my sanity. But the boss is not a complete idiot. Well, actually he is, but I cut him some slack for the moment, as he can smell the rat but just can’t figure where it is. We leave him to ponder...

The next day heads turn as the PFY and I stroll into work in the required apparel, and present the receipt for our new attire to the boss, who promptly has some dramatic form of seizure.

An hour later he’s revived by the company nurse, but not before the PFY and I have a couple of cracks at the task with a impromptu defibrillator made from pieces of his desktop machine.

”Where am I?” the boss asks.

”In your office,” I reply. ”You had some sort of fit!”

”That’s right. What the BLOODY HELL IS THAT?!” he asks, pointing at the receipt.

”It’s the invoice for our clothes. Remember in our contract it specifically states that any specially-made safety apparel is to be provided by the company. Do you know how hard it is to get Italian-made steel-cap shoes with that professional look with only six hours notice? They had to fly them in specially!”

”You won’t get away with it!” he snarls, noticing again the large collection of figures at the bottom of the page.

”Now don’t you worry,” I respond soothingly. ”You’ve had a nasty turn, but we’ve taken care of everything. One
of the nice accountants with a predilection for viewing Internet strip-shows was only too happy to supply the blank cheque to us yesterday afternoon ...”

”Then I’ll have it STOPPED!” the boss says smugly, victory in sight.

So much in sight in fact, it obscures the still live remains of his PC from his vision...

I give him a good 10 minutes of heart boosting electricity before I call the nurse back again, during which time the PFY calls our clothing supplier to advise a quick clearance time ...

And they say a blue pinstripe is dressing for success ...

kirving

Del2005 wrote: »

Comparing light weight sports shoes to safety boots is like comparing apples and oranges. I doubt many builders are going through every 6 months.

You can ask all you want but if they supply equipment which meets the standards required, and fit correctly, then you'll have to buy your own fancy PPE and make sure that it's meets the correct standard as you'll have a problem if you get injured wearing it.

Perhaps not replacing every six months, but just making the point that €250 for a pair of boots is not crazy money, nor is them lasting just six months in what has to be one of the more difficult terrains out there entirely unexpected.

If I got 1300 hours at out of a pair of mountain biking shoes (about €150), where I spend a decent amount of time in the forest in wet/muddy conditions, I would be absolutely delighted. They'd last me 6 years at that rate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the employer is paying for equipment, it's the employers call whether to pay for cheap equipment and replace it frequently or expensive equipment and replace it less frequently. As long as the equipment is fit for purpose it's nothing to the employee.

But in reality, it does matter to the employee when they have to wear them 40+ hours per week. Complying to the absolute bare minimum safety standard is of course all the employer legally has to do, but it's particularly mean spirited in my book.

From the employers point of view, if they supply absolute rubbish, employees will buy their own gear for comfort's sake, and soon they don't have to buy anything. It's a problem that solves itself.