Facial hair prevents tight-fitting RPE from sealing, placing workers’ health at risk, so they must be clean-shaven or use PAPRs. Daniel Windle, Paralegal at DAC Beachcroft LLP, explains the responsibilities of businesses to provide safe and suitable PPE.
Facial hair is increasingly common in today’s workforce, but when it comes to respiratory protective equipment (RPE), stubble and beards present a serious compliance challenge. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) research confirms that facial hair compromises the seal of tightfitting masks, reducing their effectiveness and exposing workers to hazardous substances.
Why clean-shaven matters
HSE Report RR10521 confirms that the clean-shaven requirement for tight-fitting RPE is essential. Even short stubble can break the seal on masks, such as FFP3 filtering facepieces and half masks, significantly reducing protection. This effect can start within 24 hours of shaving and worsens as facial hair grows. Since the impact is unpredictable, enforcing a cleanshaven policy is the only practical solution. HSE guidance is clear: facial hair, including stubble, prevents a proper seal. Where there are legitimate reasons for maintaining a beard, such as religious observance or medical conditions, employers must provide alternative RPE that does not rely on a tight fit. Allowing workers with facial hair to wear tight-fitting masks without a proper seal breaches health and safety law and undermines an organisation’s respiratory protection policy.
Alternatives for workers who cannot shave
If shaving is not an option, workers must use an alternative. The most common solution is a powered air respirator system (PAPR), which delivers filtered air into a loose-fitting headtop or helmet. These systems do not rely on a face seal and are suitable for workers with beards or stubble. Although they involve higher upfront costs, they eliminate compliance risks and improve comfort. Businesses should ensure any alternative equipment meets all relevant safety standards.
Legal duties: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) provision
The Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2022 have added a tier of complexity by extending PPE obligations to “limb (b)” workers. Businesses are required to treat limb (b) workers the same as employees when it comes to PPE provision: where PPE is required, it must be supplied free of charge, and employers must provide training and instruction in its correct use.
Workers may choose to wear their own PPE, but the employer remains responsible for ensuring that any personally sourced equipment meets the required safety standards. Those who are genuinely self-employed fall outside the scope of these regulations, but the responsibility to ensure correct RPE use applies across the supply chain. Failure to comply can lead to enforcement action, including sanctions and fees for intervention, which remain common in the finishes and interiors sector.
Who counts as limb (b)?
When this obligation was first introduced, it was made clear that the duty to provide PPE will not apply to those who are genuinely self-employed. However, HSE guidance notes that every employment relationship will be specific to the individual and the employer. As such, the precise status of any worker may only be determined by a court or tribunal. Section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines limb (b) workers as individuals who agree to perform work personally for another party that is not a client or customer of their own business.
A genuine, unfettered right of substitution usually negates limb (b) status, making the individual self-employed. However, courts scrutinise substitution clauses closely: if the right is theoretical or restricted, the worker could still be deemed limb (b).
There are essentially two key questions:
1 Is there an obligation to perform the work personally?
2 Is the other party a client or customer of the individual’s own business?
If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, limb (b) status is likely. For our members, this distinction is critical. Treating subcontractors as limb (b) workers triggers PPE obligations. Conversely, asserting a genuine substitution right supports the position that PPE provision is not legally required, though many firms still supply PPE for commercial and compliance reasons.
Employment status and PPE obligations
Determining whether an individual is an employee, a limb (b) worker, or genuinely self‑employed is a fact‑specific exercise. Government guidance2 emphasises that status depends on factors such as personal service, the level of control exercised, and whether the individual is operating a business in their own right.
Where an individual meets the definition of a limb (b) worker under section 230(3) (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the PPE at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2022 require businesses to provide PPE on the same basis as employees.
Some labour-supply arrangements, such as gang labour models, can make worker-status assessments more complex. Businesses should ensure they proactively discuss arrangements and any potential limb-worker status with the business providing the labour, to ensure all parties are meeting their responsibilities. They should also consider taking legal advice on the specifics of the contractual appointment and the obligations created, where appropriate.
What if someone refuses to shave?
Employers should begin by confirming the minimum RPE requirements through a risk assessment and specifying appropriate equipment. For most PPE, such as hard hats, gloves or safety glasses, employees generally accept the issued items. Footwear often allows for more personal choice, provided it meets the required specification. A similar approach can apply to RPE. If a worker chooses not to comply with a cleanshaven policy for personal reasons, they may be permitted to source their own alternative, provided it meets the businesses specification and legal standards. Evidence of compliance should be required.
However, the situation changes if the refusal is based on protected characteristics, such as religious observance or medical conditions. In these cases, employers have a duty to consider reasonable adjustments, such as providing PAPRs with loose-fitting hoods that do not require a face seal. If no reasonable alternative can be provided, legal advice should be sought before considering disciplinary action. Employers must balance health and safety obligations with equality and human rights considerations.
The overriding principle is that employers must meet their health and safety duties, but where a worker cannot shave for religious or medical reasons, reasonable adjustments should be explored. If no suitable adjustment is available, legal advice should be sought before considering formal action.
Commercial considerations
Beyond compliance, providing suitable RPE fosters trust and reduces downtime from enforcement action. While PAPRs involve upfront investment, they can improve productivity by reducing fit-test failures, enhance workforce diversity and inclusion, and demonstrate best practice to clients and regulators.
Key takeaways
Tight-fitting RPE requires a clean-shaven face; there can be no exceptions for stubble. If shaving is not possible, PAPRs with loose fitting hoods provide a compliant alternative. Under the PPE at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2022, employers of limb (b) workers must supply PPE free of charge where it is required and ensure proper training. Substitution clauses in contracts affect whether a worker is classed as limb (b), so contracts should reflect reality. Finally, document risk assessments and seek legal advice where religious or medical exemptions apply. Employers must still protect workers from harm, but they should explore reasonable adjustments for those who cannot shave for religious or medical reasons, provided these do not compromise safety.
Source
1. https://tinyurl.com/yy6e6eyw
2. https://tinyurl.com/mtz7rctc
