Health and safety consultant Andy Farrall follows the April print issue of Professional Security Magazine’s look at the risks and rules around lone workers by going on to the security guard’s equipment.
Personal Protective Equipment (or PPE as it is better known) is specifically defined in law as:
… all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety, and any addition or accessory designed to meet that objective.
Accessories
Note that accessories are also included. This means that the regulations cover things such as inner linings for coats, and inserts for ear defenders. PPE is a fact of life within the security industry, from yellow Day-Glo jackets to boots, but it can be an expensive fact of life for the company issuing the equipment. This is why some companies – in an attempt to save costs on a low margin contract – can find themselves in breach of the law. But let’s go back a couple of steps.
Law demands
The first question to consider is whether companies are legally obliged to issue PPE, or whether it is just customary, like issuing ties. The quick answer is that – in most cases – the issue of PPE is indeed obligatory. The law demands that all companies carry out a "suitable and sufficient" assessment of risks to their employees . Once risks have been identified then they must be eliminated or reduced, and PPE is one way of doing this. If the identified risk is that the officer could be run down by a vehicle while on gate duty then logically one issues him with a yellow jacket to make him visible. The jacket becomes PPE since it is protecting him from harm. Or: an officer has to cross a very noisy workshop to do his rounds. The noise level has been assessed as high enough that staff must wear ear defenders, so the officer must also be given ear defenders. Is issuing PPE always the best solution? No, because the system recommended for eliminating or minimising risk says that issuing PPE is a last resort to be used when all other measures have been considered.
Rearrange rounds
For the officer crossing a noisy workshop the best practice is to rearrange his rounds so he does not have to enter the shop at all – thus removing the need for ear defenders. In this case issuing PPE is a possible solution but it isn’t the best, and it can’t be used as an excuse to avoid doing a full risk assessment and developing proper risk reduction strategies. Thus far we’ve seen that security companies can fall foul of the law in two ways:
1) By not issuing PPE at all, either because it’s seen as being too expensive or because there has been no proper risk assessment carried out;
2) By issuing PPE without thinking it through. PPE is a last resort, and the company must show that it has considered other ways of eliminating or reducing the risk apart from "give him an anti- stab vest and he’ll be fine". However, there is a third, and very common, mistake which companies can make which puts them in legal jeopardy.
Charge
Companies tend to charge staff for PPE, but this action is forbidden by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The rationale is that companies have a duty of care to their employees, and if this duty requires them to issue PPE for safety then so be it. The employee cannot be charged. However, it is not just companies who can come unstuck with the law on PPE. The employee must use any PPE supplied as a result of a risk assessment because he is legally obliged to cooperate with the employer in matters of health and safety. If the employee refuses to comply he commits an offence. When I was an instructor I remember having a "frank exchange of views" with a female security officer who objected to wearing a reflective jacket when she was only "popping across the yard to the offices". The simple fact was that the employer had (correctly) issued an instruction that nobody was to enter the yard without benefit of protective clothing regardless of how long they were to be there. That instruction formed part of the risk assessment and as a result the officer was legally obliged to comply. Her personal like or dislike of the jacket was irrelevant.
Damage
The only caveat is that an employee is not expected to wear equipment that either does not fit or is damaged. For PPE to work correctly it must fit properly and be suitable for the job in hand. Indeed, if it doesn’t meet these key criteria then it can be argued that it isn’t PPE because it cannot protect the user. A safety helmet is of no practical use if it is perched on top of the employee’s head – one blow and the helmet will fly off leaving the skull unprotected. Yellow Day-Glo jackets are of little use if they are plastered in mud and oil because there is very little material left to do any reflecting. And that neatly brings us to the subject of maintenance. Like all other equipment PPE has a service life, needs to be checked at intervals, and must be stored correctly when not in use. These requirements are covered in the PPE Regulations :
7 (1) Every employer shall ensure that any personal protective equipment provided to his employees is maintained (including replaced or cleaned as appropriate) in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.
8) Where an employer … is required … to ensure personal protective equipment is provided, he shall also ensure that appropriate accommodation is provided for that personal protective equipment when it is not being used.
As we shall see it makes sense to keep a written record of when PPE was issued; to whom and for what purpose; and the last time it was serviced or checked. Note that the PPE regulations oblige the employer to provide staff with sufficient information, instruction and training so that they can understand how it works; the limitations on its use (e.g. is there a noise level above which these ear defenders do not work?); and how to keep the PPE clean and in safe working order. A suitable entry on the PPE record will confirm that this information has been provided correctly.
Tedious but cheap
Finally, note that Regulation 7 (quoted above) requires the employer to ensure that the PPE is properly maintained in good working order. You cannot off-load the responsibility totally onto the employee once the kit is issued; instead you have to devise and manage a system for checking PPE and replacing it as necessary. This sounds complicated, but may entail nothing more than the supervisor or manager doing weekly equipment checks and making a suitable entry in the PPE records. PPE control may be tedious, but it’s cheaper than a claim for damages – and it keeps people alive!
About the author
Andy Farrall is a health and safety consultant with Bristol-based Logic SHE Solutions Ltd. He has worked with HM Customs & Excise and the Regional Crime Squad; lectured on fraud and corporate security; and has designed and delivered specialist training courses for manned guarding. His remit at Logic includes health and safety consultancy, accident investigation and training course development.
