Hi everybody, hope someone can help me with a question......

Are there any circumstances you are aware of where a Franchisor would be responsible for the health & safety of their Franchisees?

The majority of Franchisees are self-employed (hot topic, I know!), although some of them trade as Limited companies.

The Franchisees follow the Franchisor's working practices and supply the Franchisor's goods to customers.

One argument here is that The Franchisor's health & safety responsibilities to the Franchisee only extends as far as S3, with some responsibilities to them under S6 (as a supplier).

However, as they work directly under the Franchisor's control, to their strict protocols, and are managed on a day-to-day basis by their management staff, would they be considered as employees under health & safety legislation?

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated, or indeed any instances of case law.

Thanks in anticipation..........

Liable or responsible?
A franchisor could only ever 'become' responsible (HASAWA duties) for another person, if they could be shown to have created a risk by their (own) undertaking. I fail to see how a franchisor would have any such duty to the employees of a franchisee (who is a separate employer with HASAWA responsibilities) whilst they were under the control of the franchisee employer.

It's also possible that there could be a supplier or manufacturer role breached under HASAWA s6 for devices etc. developed or built by the franchisor. However, I would be surprised if any enforcement action would ever be pursued, as these are tenuous potentials and hardly worth an enforcers interest or effort. Easier and more obvious to go for the direct employer if it comes to it.

There may be a case for negligence by a franchisee against a franchisor IF a loss or injury were to occur, AND it could be shown there was a common law duty, AND that the franchisor had been negligent in some way. Possibly by developing an unsafe method of working, which was part of the deal. This would create a liability in theory.

I have never heard of any case law relating to this type of relationship.