Rank: Forum user 
|
If a person is employed by a company as self employed but does not work for any other company they will be classed as employed by the Inland revenue.
Is this the same classification for the HSE?
Seems theres so many firms working around "Employed in everything but tax terms" and just wondered where the HSEs perception might be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Nimble
No easy answer to this one because the employment status of an individual will depend largely on three different perspectives - tax, employment and health and safety law. In the scenario you have provided I would advise to treat the self-employed person as you would an employee - then you can't go wrong.
Regardless of what you decided the liability lies firmly with the employer pursuant to HSWA s2 or s3 - take your pick.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If not considered to be an employee they should have their own H&S regime including RA's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Ray; thats been my view too; however many companies; some of them very supposedly reputable; I've worked for refuse to counternance that as "it may give them another foot towards claiming PAYE status".
Think its only going to get worse with the changes to "low risk" self employed too; cultural minefield !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Employment status can be a little bit of a red herring. There are so many variations on this theme that the HSE will take each scenario on it's own merit.
Working in agriculture means that this sort of situation occurs a lot. In farming family members are often not even paid but the duty of care still exists as far as the HSE are concerned. This is how I explain it to my farming clients:
If you hire a self employed contractor in to spray your fields and he is providing his own tractor / sprayer and possibly the pesticides too and he does it at a time that suits him and he is in control of the activity then he is not an employee he is a contractor. Check he has the spray certs and has PL insurance etc. Job done. The HSE would look at whether you checked the sprayers competence.
If you employ a self employed contractor to spray your fields but you supply the tractor / sprayer and pesticides and so the activity is being directed by you then he is in effect an employee for that period of time. Check he has the spray certs and that he is covered by your insurance but then you also must give him the equipment and knowledge to do that job safely - ie, in a way that the farmer dictates. He is responsible for how that activity is carried out, including from a safety perspective. The HSE would look at whether you checked the sprayers competence but also whether the work activity was adequately controlled by the farmer (maintenance of equipment, SSoW etc).
There are lots of variations on the theme and like I say each case should be looked at individually but really it's about who has control of the work activity. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I would tend to agree with Ray and Claire. The HMRC, ET and HSE may all have their own views on whether someone is an employee or not. This will depend on the individual circumstances. In the event on an incident being investigated by the HSE, I would assume that they will look at the circumstances and if necessary take advice from their legal team on the employment status of the individual(s) involved i.e. is there an employee/employer relationship.
As Claire has said, for me, I tend to look at the element of ‘control’ or ‘influence’. If ‘I’ am controlling the activities of the worker and I am in the position of ‘influencing;’ what they do or don’t do, then I would suggest that I am the employer and they are my employee (for the purposes of H&S).
A classic example is that of many ‘agency workers’. They may well be an employee of the agency for PAYE/NI purposes, but in many cases they will be an employee of the ‘user’ for H&S purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all the replies; it reflects the general rows I've had with colleagues over the matter.
Some more great examples for future discussions too which I'd never heard phrased that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Must reply here. The HSE will define you as the employer if you are putting that person to work. It has nothing to do with it if there is money involved or not, it is whether you are 'managing' and directing someone to carry out a task and thus putting them at risk. I had this clearly explained to me when myself and a colleague was cross examined by a HSE inspector and assistant. I then had this re-iterated to me on contacting the construction division of the HSE when following up my visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:I would tend to agree with Ray and Claire. The HMRC, ET and HSE may all have their own views on whether someone is an employee or not. This will depend on the individual circumstances. In the event on an incident being investigated by the HSE, I would assume that they will look at the circumstances and if necessary take advice from their legal team on the employment status of the individual(s) involved i.e. is there an employee/employer relationship.
As Claire has said, for me, I tend to look at the element of ‘control’ or ‘influence’. If ‘I’ am controlling the activities of the worker and I am in the position of ‘influencing;’ what they do or don’t do, then I would suggest that I am the employer and they are my employee (for the purposes of H&S).
A classic example is that of many ‘agency workers’. They may well be an employee of the agency for PAYE/NI purposes, but in many cases they will be an employee of the ‘user’ for H&S purposes.
PS wasn't disagreeing with you here just clarifying exactly what was put to me 'from the horses mouth'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
jarsmith83 wrote:Must reply here. The HSE will define you as the employer if you are putting that person to work. It has nothing to do with it if there is money involved or not, it is whether you are 'managing' and directing someone to carry out a task and thus putting them at risk. I had this clearly explained to me when myself and a colleague was cross examined by a HSE inspector and assistant. I then had this re-iterated to me on contacting the construction division of the HSE when following up my visit.
Fully agree, this is without doubt the case, irrespective of employment or inland revenue tax status, all persons working for a company will be regarded as employees, and should be treated as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.