Abstract
Facial hair inhibits the functionality of certain respiratory protective equipment, yet employers have a duty of care to provide protection for their employees against communicable respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. Could individuals be forced to remove their facial hair? How can staff with facial hair be protected from COVID-19? These issues present legal and ethical dilemmas for employers and employees alike regarding the provision and use of respiratory and personal protective equipment under health and safety considerations. This is a law review examining various UK statutory instruments and case law surrounding the use of facial hair and the use of respiratory protection. Facial hair is a hazard when considering respiratory protective equipment provision and use. Unless there is an absolute need requiring the removal of facial hair for any reason, individuals have the right to grow facial hair as they see fit. It is arguable though what an “absolute need” may be, as numerous proportional and reasonable adjustments can be made to accommodate facial hair that can mitigate the risks associated with respiratory diseases.
Highlights
The COVID-19 pandemic presented employers with ethical and legal challenges in terms of respiratory protection
Facial hair presents with challenges, in particular within the healthcare setting, where protection from certain communicable respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 requires the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) along with other personal protective equipment (PPE)
Sandaradura et al (2020) pointed out that facial hair significantly inhibits the fit of face masks, as in their study no bearded employees achieved a sufficient fit with their RPE
Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic presented employers with ethical and legal challenges in terms of respiratory protection. Facial hair presents with challenges, in particular within the healthcare setting, where protection from certain communicable respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 requires the use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) along with other personal protective equipment (PPE). Singh et al (2020) have devised a technique that could be utilized to achieve an improved fit for commercially available RPE in conjunction with the existence of facial hair on their participants. Some employers seem to be able to abuse and ignore workplace rights in the UK by referring to “force majeure” clauses and to practices which are clearly contravening workplace rights, knowing that the state apparatus does overlook certain issues based on political agendas This is especially true for healthcare settings in the UK as Cowper (2020) rightly pointed out. The aim of this review is to establish an answer under UK law
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call