Rank: Guest
|
Posted By STEVE
Whilst I understand that we as a Company owe our employees a duty of care, where do we stand if our employees are managed by a Client?
x amount of workers on a site, provided with different work each day by a Client Manager, have a Company Supervisor on-site, but only ensures workload is achieved.
Client provides all PTWs, Safe Working Procedures, Training for tasks, provides any Safety Plans, provides any specialist PPE/RPE.
Our employees complete a basic Task Assessment each day.
Our employee has a near miss,or is involved in an Incident/Accident- Client records all of these on their Databases, but only informs our Safety Manager dependant on misfortune or seriousness.
All incidents fully investigated by Client and report passed on to our Company at some stage.
Is it enough to accept that the Client has performed a investigation fully if records are passed over, or should we be informed straight away so as to investigate along with or independantley of the Client?
Should we provide our own R/A, M/Statements or can we accept that the Client has the experience, knowledge,expertise to manage its own risks and provide this information to our employees?
If LTA occured on this site should both the Client and ourselves report this under RIDDOR or because the employee is managed by the Client, working on his/hers premises should they report it under their systems then provide us with a copy of report.
Any feedback most welcome
Steve
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham
Complex questions, but legally very simple to answer, both your company and whoever is managing them is responsible.
What you ask is similar to a sub-contractor who's employees work on a larger building site. Both employers have legal duties, they may comply with the law differently because of their organisations but the legal duties remain the same. So neither has a get out of jail free card.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Steve
Have to agree with previous posting. Ultimately it is your responsibility to ensure that your employees are adequately trained, supervised and the equipment provided is fit for the purpose.
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Hi,
Yes, this has been repeatedly established in the Courts, the most recent compelling case was against Royal Ordnance. A staggering judgement wherein the RO was held liable for a specialist sub-sub-contractor circumventing safety systems and agreed methods to injure three people in an explosion, but said sub-sub-contactor being found not guilty.
I really must get a transcript to try and understand further...
|
|
|
|
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.