Rank: Forum user 
|
A company work in a fabrication and warehousing building as a tennant. There is no exclusive use clause or statement that they will have sole occupency of the space which is larger than they require. The landlord now wants to rent a part of the building to another company undertaking similar activities. The landlord is saying that the current occupier needs to carry out a RA etc under Reg 11 of MHSAW Regs. Whilst the company agree joint arrangements need to be put in place they want to know how the landlord has RA and ensured that current Welfare and Safe Place provisions have been assured. The Landlord is not providing this assurance. What are there obligations in this scenario? Shouldn't the new company provide the joint arrangement mitigations as part of their moving in to the new establishment? The current occupier has HSE Support but the new tennant no formal support. The current company is concerned that the costs and resource in managing this change all seems to be falling on them and although they are willing to help draw up a joint Haz ID / RA etc they do not think they should be driving it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi mrkjd I think this is predominantly a contractual issue, in that you state: "There is no exclusive use clause or statement that they will have sole occupency of the space which is larger than they require."
Which means that the current occupier should realistically have expected that one or more other tenants would move in.
Then as pointed out each employer sharing a workspace has to cooperate etc. If there are two employers, with one of them perhaps having more staff, and the advantage of knowing the premises, then the probability is that they will end up doing most of the hard lifting when it comes to identifying what will work in terms of that cooperation etc. Each of those employers has to have a "competent person" to advise them on H&S issues. How each employee chooses to implement that duty is up to them. Engaging a health and safety professional whether in-house or a consultant is only one of the options. As example, it might be that the new tenant implements this requirement by having managers who own H&S as an integral part of their responsibilities and if sufficiently competent then perhaps they have no need for a Safety Bod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I suspect you're right Peter in terms of the day to day activities but what about the shared building aspects - toilets / access/egress / stairs / asbestos control /legionaires / fire alarm system etc which they provide and service? Does the landlord not have a requirement to demostrate they have RAd and identified hazards associated with those aspects as the party in control for these as part of change management? My thinking is that these provide a foundation for Safe Place on which activity and joint agreed controls are arranged. The landlord ( and indeed new tennant) should have some sort written plan to assure the current occupier that the changes will not result in facilities that are no longer to the required standard (over-crowded / insufficient space / insufficient wash rooms / rest areas etc. How can the current tennant come up with controls and mitigations if the space and activity requirements of the incoming tennant are not articulated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It comes back to what the original contract between tennant and landlord stated - just because there is no exclusivity on the space does it include provision for additional tennants being introduced? I would comment that because the landlord wishes to introduce a second tennant the existing contract now requires wholescale review and revision to clearly document who carries what reponsibility between the three parties particularly in relation to shared welfare, site maintenance, utilities etc.
As this is a commercial contract the devil will be in the detail and who has the better lawyer. Personally I find the landlords action questionable and if they consider this an appropriate course of action it is time to find new premises. Whilst it appears they are happy to take the reward of two rentals they do not seem to have considered the risks and adequate controls to protect the business intersts of both tennants.
Similar activity = possible competitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It comes back to what the original contract between tennant and landlord stated - just because there is no exclusivity on the space does it include provision for additional tennants being introduced? I would comment that because the landlord wishes to introduce a second tennant the existing contract now requires wholescale review and revision to clearly document who carries what reponsibility between the three parties particularly in relation to shared welfare, site maintenance, utilities etc.
As this is a commercial contract the devil will be in the detail and who has the better lawyer. Personally I find the landlords action questionable and if they consider this an appropriate course of action it is time to find new premises. Whilst it appears they are happy to take the reward of two rentals they do not seem to have considered the risks and adequate controls to protect the business intersts of both tennants.
Similar activity = possible competitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi mrkjd You have essentially expanded the original question from what happens when one tenant does things in shared space to the adequacy of that shared space for shared use. Now clearly if, as example, the building has enough toilets (and the right Male/Female/Unisex split) for 100 workers and bringing in a new tenant means there will now be 150 workers then there is a problem of the landlord's making. But that is an entirely different issue to asking about the cooperation etc between two employers sharing a workplace when one's operations impinges on the shared accommodation. So, I think you need to think about what the concerns are. Some will be about things which are clearly within the landlord's control, others will be for co-tenants to take the lead on resolving. ....and, in each case, with a review of whether the Contracts are compatible with regulatory compliance by each party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.