09 August 2007
Lucie Ponting

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is the last line of defence in preventing workplace injuries and ill health. If you can't control the risks in other ways, you must provide PPE and workers must use it. But what happens when someone refuses to wear a hard hat on a construction site or a respirator in a chemical factory? What are the most likely grounds for refusal, and how do you deal with it?

"It's not an uncommon enquiry for us", says Geoff Hooke, secretary general of the British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF). It might be from employers asking, 'what do I do if ...?' or from contractors saying, 'the client wants this; why do I need it?'"

People sometimes refuse to wear PPE because of religious beliefs or on health grounds but, mostly, refusals stem from poor management, communication and training. If workers don't understand why they need to wear PPE or don't have any say in choosing it, they are more likely to refuse to use it than if they are properly trained and involved.

Deep-seated beliefs

Probably the best known example of PPE requirements conflicting with religious belief involves Sikh workers' refusal to wear protective headgear. But there are other instances: Hindus may object to cowskin gloves because the cow is sacred and Muslims could shy away from pigskin because they consider the pig "unclean".

Clean-shaven policies in the workplace can be another source of conflict. Often introduced because beards and facial hair impede the fit of certain respiratory protection, beard bans can cause problems for workers where facial hair is a religious requirement.

Common objections to PPE on health grounds include claims that ear defenders can lead to infections and that impermeable protective gloves contribute to dermatitis. But probably the most high-profile medical example is that of a warehouse worker dismissed because his employer couldn't find an alternative to the safety boots that aggravated his skin condition (see 'Not excused boots' below).

Sometimes workers refuse to wear PPE for less obvious reasons. Ian Samson, European training specialist at DuPont Personal Protection, recalls that some shipyard workers in the 1960s and 1970s refused to wear protective clothing in particular colours.

The great historical division along Catholic and Protestant lines (and their associated football teams) in the city carried over to the different yards, he says. Problems arose when the yards needed to issue "bump caps", which were then manufactured in blue PROBAN cloth.

"In Glasgow, one shipyard would wear it," he says, "but another wouldn't." The predominately Protestant Rangers supporters were happy but Catholic Celtic fans refused to wear blue and wanted green caps instead. "It was the same for gloves and overalls," he says.

Any exceptions?

Faced with workers refusing to put on their PPE, you first need to pin down their objections. Is it uncomfortable to wear, is it too heavy, does it restrict movement? In these cases, good communication, effective consultation, better training and reasonable adjustments should be all that is needed to head off the problem.

But where the refusal stems from ethical or religious beliefs, it may be harder to resolve. The legislation is clear: the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at Work Regulations 1992 contain no provision for exemptions from using or wearing PPE on religious, medical or other grounds. In negotiations on the original European Directive that inspired the Regulations, the UK tried for a derogation to allow religious tolerance to take precedence, but other member states (without large Sikh populations) refused to support the move.

Sikh workers do, however, have an exemption from wearing head protection on construction sites. Under the Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989, employers must provide suitable head protection for employees involved in construction work unless there is no foreseeable risk of injury. But Sikhs who wear turbans are exempt from the requirement to wear head protection by virtue of the Employment Act 1989. The exemption applies only to construction sites. At other workplaces with significant residual risk of head injury, workers who aren't willing to wear head protection should be restricted to areas where the risk is adequately controlled.

More generally, where employers decide they have to provide suitable PPE to safeguard against identified risks in line with Regulation 4 of the PPE Regulations, employees must wear it and employers must enforce its use. Employees also have a duty under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to ensure their own health and safety at work. Refusing to wear equipment necessary to control exposure to residual risks puts them in breach of that duty and of the Regulations.

Make it suitable

To avoid conflict, good communication from the outset is crucial. Workers need to be properly informed about the reasons for particular equipment and fully involved in choosing it.

"Problems tend to arise when safety officers try to impose a regime without consultation or try to change PPE without consultation," says Samson. For example, if a firm is changing its chemical suits, safety officers need to work closely with the supplier and with workers so everyone understands the benefits and why the change is necessary. "If workers then have a particular question or issue, they can raise it," he says.

At the BSIF, Geoff Hooke agrees: "If you say 'you will do this', the attitude is often 'why should I?' But if you say, 'here is a selection, which do you prefer?', it's good worker engagement." He knows of at least one firm which benefited from a "serious drop" in accident rates after it introduced a formal process consulting on the best PPE, educating workers on why it was necessary and providing for worker input on its use.

The HSE's line is that employers can overcome most problems by minimising the need for PPE in the first place, and then by paying particular attention to choosing appropriate equipment and to how employees adjust to the regime.

Under the PPE Regulations, protection must be suitable for the wearer; in particular, it should take into account their health and it should fit correctly.

"Part of the issue," says Hooke, "is that it's down to the employer to be sensitive to worker requirements within a clear understanding of what the risk assessment shows needs to be done. It's also about proper instruction and training."

Where someone persists in refusing to wear PPE and the problem cannot be resolved, the employer may choose to re-deploy them to another job or out of a dangerous area, or to take disciplinary action if necessary. As John Gilberston argued in a recent article in HSW (see Drawing the line), you need to treat disobeying safety instructions as seriously as any other rule breaking. In essence, the message to employees should be "you can't opt out of health and safety".

Contractual obligation

Jon Cooper, partner at solicitors Bond Pearce, says the starting point is that employers have to assess the risks associated with the work activity and eliminate or reduce those risks to an acceptable level. If a risk assessment identifies the need for PPE, it is the employer's duty to supply it and to police its correct use.

As a matter of good policy, he says, employers should make sure their contractual terms and conditions allow them to treat failure to follow reasonable health and safety instructions as gross misconduct. He points out that where there are other considerations, such as religious issues, you have "to be mindful of the other legislation such as discrimination legislation". But health and safety is critical: "The way to manage it is to have it in the contract."

---

Not excused boots

Warehouse worker Brian Farmiloe suffered from the skin condition psoriasis, which meant he could not wear the safety boots his employer Lane Group had identified as necessary.

As a concession, the company instead allowed him to wear his own sturdy shoes. But during a routine inspection, an officer from North Somerset Council decided this was unacceptable.

Lane Group tried and failed to find suitable alternative footwear that satisfied safety requirements without aggravating Farmiloe's condition. After also failing to find suitable alternative work, it dismissed him.

An employment tribunal upheld his claim of discrimination but the Employment Appeal Tribunal later reversed this decision. It held that the employer's risk assessment had deemed that PPE was necessary. In this case, the employer must take reasonable steps to find PPE suitable for an individual employee and if this is not practicable then it must look for suitable alternative work. But if neither is available, duties under health and safety law override employment law.

---

Categories:
Chemicals, Construction, Personal protective equipment (PPE), Utilities, Accident reduction, Article, Manufacturing / engineering, Accident reduction