My company issues work to an individual to fit solar PV system. He then pays his labourer out of his set price per Solar install.

We then pay an sub contacted electrician a set price to connect the system.

We allocate the solar PV fitter work on a near daily basis, some weeks this may be 3-4 days dependant on the amount of work we have.

The electricians work is also heavily based with us and will be working on our jobs all week, but he is a stand alone guy.

How do we fall with providing them with safety equipment, training etc. ?

I know law states employees must be provided with PPE etc. But this is somewhat a grey area with various individuals having varying opinions ?

The tax man might disagee that they are self employed

Thank you for the very informative responses.

Ron:

We only work on domestic properties and install within a day. In all honesty my knowledge on CMD isn't up to date, but have see you comment on a number on construction threads with great detail so if you would be kind enough could you please expand a little ?

Richv:

A very interesting point - The guys we would have as a BFSC are an individual who would appoint his own labourer and then install from there.

As a company could we not manage the PV installers health and safety for them, in terms of training, providing them with our RA's and monitoring them on site ?

The electricians would have the qualifications required but again we could provide the above along with W@H training etc ?

The insurance point is very interesting. At present they are operating under our insurance, in the event of an incident would the insurance company look into this much detail ?

Would it be possible to add them to our policy or would they require their own ? This is all new but very useful information.

Thanks again

To quote: "... woudl the insurance company look into this much detail?"

Oh yes! Insurers are interested in whether you employ LOSC - because as already stated they effectively increase your labour force. They are employees in every respect other than their name.

Insdurers also want to know about payments to BFSC. Not becasue they are covered under your insurance (or shouldn't be) but becasue they generate what is called a contingent risk. For example if the BFSC's insurance wasn't sufficient the "employer" could be joined into the action i.e. end up being dragged into the claim. And, it is not unknown for BFSC to fail to take out insurance - then, when someone tries to sue them the claim is simply deflected onto the employer.

Think you need to talk to your broker/insurance advisor.
Phil

The bottom line is that the people doing the work need to be competent and they need to have the right equipment/PPE. How you achieve that is up to you. Options are:

1. Employ the individuals directly, in which case you are fully responsible;
2. Require the contractor to provide competent staff with all the gear;
3. Require the contractor to provide people who you will train and equip.

You will end up paying for any training and equipment whichever method you follow. It is just that for options 1 and 3 the cost will be direct to you, whereas option 2 it will be 'hidden' in the contract price.

The real question you have is which option is most likely to give you what you want, which I would suggest is a safe workforce in a cost effective manner. I don't think there is anything in the regulations that will help you decide between the options.

I'm in a similar situation; new company with large subbie labour force; all essentially 1 man bands; all working solely for us.

But sub-contracted labour approved by the tax man.

Having problems with effectively managing the H&S without givng them any footing which they can then use against management to claim PAYE rights.

All keeps coming back to this LOSC and BFSC status which is something of a minefield!

as I have quoted previously National insurance contributions are also to be considered and the Dept of Pensions etc. can come for you many years down to line and it can be a costly exercise