Safety gloves go back on as soon as the foreman appears nearby, and come off again when no one is in sight. The regulations are clear. An employer cannot allow an employee to work without the required protective equipment. The question is, how can this be realistically monitored on the shop floor, where no one is standing over every workstation all day long?
The obligation is clear, but fulfilling it is another matter
Protective gloves are required whenever an operator comes into contact with sharp edges, hot components, or chemicals. The Labor Code requires employers to provide personal protective equipment and to instruct employees on how to use it [1]. However, this is not the end of their obligations. The employer must also verify that employees are actually using them as intended [2]. Providing gloves and wearing them are two different matters, and data from the Central Statistical Office (GUS) show why the latter is important: nearly 79 percent of people injured in workplace accidents in 2024 suffered injuries to their limbs [3].
A mechanism that all shift supervisors are familiar with
Gloves are uncomfortable during precise tasks, so the operator takes them off for a moment and sets them aside. The problem begins when that “moment” lasts all day, and putting them back on is a reaction to seeing a supervisor, not to the hazard itself. The result is predictable. When the foreman is nearby, the gloves are on. When no one is around, they go back on the table. Making the rounds every few minutes, with dozens of workstations per shift, is physically impossible. Occasional checks paint a better picture than the actual situation, which is worse than no checks at all, because it gives a false sense that everything is under control.
The Price of a Lack of Effective Oversight: Accidents, Liability, and Complacency
The lack of continuous supervision of PPE use results in three specific risks: An accident that no one witnessed, with no prior warning signs and no way to document the problem before the injury occurred. Legal liability without proof of oversight. In the event of an accident or a PIP audit, the lack of systematic oversight may be treated as employer negligence, even if gloves were formally issued. Supervision that encourages bad behavior: when the response depends on the supervisor’s presence, employees learn to react to the person, not the hazard. This perpetuates the problem rather than solving it.
Where to Start
Before resorting to any technical solution, two distinct questions must be answered, as they pertain to different areas of expertise and different people within the organization. The first question: Do we have protective equipment that is properly selected for the hazards at the workstation? This question is for an occupational safety and health specialist and involves occupational risk assessment. No system can replace this. The second question: Do we have proof that these protective measures are actually being worn, and not just issued? This is a question of enforcement, and this is where automated monitoring comes into play. A good starting point is to check how many workstations actually have a recurring problem with missing gloves, rather than how many times the issue was noticed during a routine inspection, because these are usually two different numbers.
Monitoring that doesn't depend on whether someone is watching at the moment
AndonCloud, in its computer vision module, addresses this second issue. The system detects when an operator is working without gloves at a workstation where gloves are required. Detection operates 24 hours a day, without the interruptions typical of manual patrols. A detected incident can immediately trigger an Andon signal or notify the foreman the moment it occurs, not after the fact. Two details are worth clarifying here, as they are usually the first questions that come up. The scope of operation is set by the company. The system does not monitor the entire production hall, only the workstations that you designate as requiring gloves. The second issue is privacy. The system recognizes only the state—whether the hands are protected or not—and not the person. There is no facial recognition and no employee identification. No video footage leaves the video server; only information about the event is transmitted: which workstation and at what time. An important caveat: the system does not assess whether a given glove model is appropriate for the hazard. That decision still falls under occupational risk assessment, not to the camera.
What it actually does is support another obligation, equally required by law: verifying whether safety measures are being followed in practice [2]. The result is simple. Supervision no longer has to depend on whether a supervisor happens to be standing at the workstation. Every detected incident is logged in the health and safety report, where it’s clear whether the problem was a one-time occurrence or a recurring issue. Enforcing the requirement to wear gloves is not a formality to be checked off once a quarter. It is a daily task that cannot be performed manually in a large production hall without compromising the reliability of the results. Continuous, automated detection does not replace risk assessments or health and safety decisions, but it provides something that manual inspections can never ensure: a true picture of what is happening at a workstation when no one is watching. It’s worth checking which workstations have a recurring problem with glove use and which ones are just a perception based on the last inspection. The difference between these two pictures often determines where the real risk lies.
FAQ
Is wearing protective gloves required by law?
Yes, if a particular workstation involves a hazard identified in the occupational risk assessment, such as sharp edges, high temperatures, or chemicals. The obligation to provide gloves and instruct employees on how to use them stems from the Labor Code [1].
Is the mere fact of providing gloves sufficient from a legal standpoint?
No. The employer must also verify that employees are actually using the provided equipment as intended [2].
Why do employees take off their gloves even though they know the rules?
Most often because of discomfort during precise tasks. Putting them back on is often a reaction to the presence of a supervisor, not to the hazard itself. How can you monitor glove use without constant patrols? An effective method is continuous automatic detection, which monitors designated workstations and alerts staff to the absence of gloves the moment it occurs, without requiring a person to physically patrol the area.
Does this system recognize who took off their gloves?
No. The detection system identifies the "no gloves" status, not the employee’s identity. It does not include facial recognition or biometric identification.
Are the camera recordings uploaded to the cloud?
No. Analysis takes place locally. Only the event log—the workstation and time—is sent externally, not the video stream. Does AndonCloud determine which gloves are appropriate for a given hazard?
No. The selection of protective equipment remains the decision of the employer and the occupational safety and health specialist, based on a risk assessment. The system supports monitoring compliance, not selection.
Are events detected by the system included in the occupational safety and health report?
Yes, each detection is logged with the workstation and time, which allows for analysis of the recurrence of the problem.
Sources
[1] Ustawa z dnia 26 czerwca 1974 r. – Kodeks pracy, art. 2376 (Dz.U.2025.0.277 t.j.).
[2] Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy. Środki ochrony indywidualnej – porady prawne. pip.gov.pl.
[3] Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Wypadki przy pracy w 2024 r. – dane wstępne. stat.gov.pl.
