Rank: Forum user 
|
Folks. I work as an auditor for a matrix organisation in the UK. The business operates all over the UK and Globally within MoD and Civilian sites. Within the sites which are fundamentally owned by the MoD, there are policy documents which clearly state that the Head of Establishment (HoE) is ultimately accountable for H&S on site and that contractors or industrial partners carrying out their work activities onsite ( my company is always onsite in very large numbers) must do so under the policies (accountability) of the HoE. My question is, in law is this interpretation of accountability explicitly correct? My company has its own MD stationed onsite and it’s own safety team and Safety Policy. The HoE has its Safety Policy. If there is an accident onsite impacting our employee would the MD of our business or the HoE be ultimate liable or would it be a blend of all parties depending on the circumstances as determined by the HSE. I guess I’m asking can the HoE actually claim to be ultimately accountable for a person who works on their owned site but are legally employed by my company under our safety policy. Where does our MDs / Company sit or can they state that while onsite the DoC transfers to the site owner (HoE). My view is that if there was an accident all parties would be subject to investigation and potential prosecution and the concept of one party ultimately being accountable in all circumstances is not correct. We have an obligation to comply with HoE policies however our Company retains DoC / accountability at some levels, which cannot be transferred? Happy to be educated. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You are right in what you say about legal liability.
Your client is probably looking at this in a somewhat different way. They are not for some reason accepting that it will just be them who are liable if something goes wrong. They are expressing control, saying "our site, our rules": they require you to follow their rules while you are on their site, which may well include them having the power to throw you off the site if you breach their rules. And they are entitled to do so. When they say "accountability", they will mean this within their own organisation: not who gets to be prosecuted, but who gets to be sacked. Now clearly they cannot sack a supplier's employee, but they can bar them from site or withdraw their custom.
|
 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
As Kate says, it appears to be a question of terminology. However, the legal accountability and who it covers is clearly given in the legal requirement.
For example, the HSWA Sect 2 details the duties every employer has to their employees. Whereas Section 3 places an equivalent duty on that employer to non-employees. Section 7 however places the duty on employees to protect themselves and other, as well as to cooperate with their employers on any other person to meet their legal duties.
These legal accountabilities are fixed, and cannot be reassigned, to or by others. Tony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.