Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By halesowen Baggie
I work for a company that is the most proactive company where H&S is concerned Ive ever come across. The downside is that they take everything to the extreme.
My board will not employ a full time maintenance person to carry out jobs on site, instead they spend thousands and I mean thousands getting in contractors.
The reason for this is liability, I have been told that if a company comes in to say mend a shutter door and this subsequently injures an employee we would not be liable.
I just want to get my facts straight before I approach the board with a proposal to employ a maintenance team.
1. Liability cannot be delegated to a 3rd person (contractors).
2. If an accident happened we would have to prove competence of both contractor/employee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Amanda
I would agree with your two points, but you also need to stress the Section 3 HASAWA duties from your employers point and also that of the Contractors.
Surely in this economic climate a cost benefit is worth considering, also they would have greater control of the employee and as a proactive H&S company they would welcome this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Baggie,
This is not a simple question. Liability is dependant upon a breach of duty; today, this is normally a statutory duty, but may be negligence and/or contract. You are only liable where you have breached your duty to the contractors employees.
In principle and practice liability can be and is often restricted to third parties i.e. contractors!
As such you do not have to prove competence of contractors for liability purposes. However, you may have to prove that you carried out reasonable checks for the benefit of your enforcement authority.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Randall
Hi,
there is some case law that is relevant to this subject; Larner v British Steel I think.
In this case the company who employed the contractor were found to be liable for the injuries sustained to the contractor's employee because they (the Company) had not made certain that the contractor had a safe system of work and the work that the contrator was doing, i.e. cleaning a tank, was part of the Company's undertaking.
It follows therefore that any injury to anyone as a result of a contractor's action could result in the employing company being jointly and severally liable with the contractor.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GARRY WIZZ
Treading with care, it makes little difference if you employ a contractor or an employee, for each you have a duty of care, for each you will have to exercise due diligence for competence, experience, training Contractor insurance often has 'get out clauses that come to light after the incident'. I can exercise good control over an employee whilst a contractor is more difficult to control.
In my experience an employee handyman is easier to control for hazard / risk, reacts a lot quicker (get the job done ), generates significantly less administration to me and accounts and the cost saving is a plus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.