Section 37 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 („OHS Act“) deals with an employer`s criminal liability for acts or omissions by workers or contractors (37.2). This is also called the Assistant Responsibility Clause. Responsibility as a substitute is described in Neethling`s Delict Act as „the strict responsibility of one person for the rejection of another person.“ (A misdemeanor is an illegitimate act that can cause damage) Given the client`s potential liability for the behaviour of his representative, it would be wise to enter into a similar agreement to regulate the relationship between the client and the agent. In cases where the client does not have the expertise and experience to carry out a construction project, such an agreement would be essential to protect the interests of the contractor. The rules define a client as anyone for whom construction work is done. For a contractor who does not work in the construction industry or who does not have the expertise and experience required for a construction project, compliance with these obligations may not be practical. In addition, the text of the regulations states that these obligations should not be „delegated“ to a designated „primary contractor“ or a designated „contractor.“ Sub-regulations 5 (6) and (7) of the regulations provide for the designation in writing of a competent person acting on behalf of the adjudicating entity as an agent. However, clients would be advised to check whether a written appointment and the terms of an underlying warrant contract are sufficient to protect themselves from possible liability that could result from an OHASA breach. In general, an employer can avoid liability if it can prove that the worker acted without authorization and outside the jurisdiction and that the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct in question. In accordance with section 37, paragraph 2, of oHASA, this section also applies to an „agent“ of an employer or user (the „agent“ is defined as „agent“ in section 1 oHASA). However, article 37, paragraph 2 of OHASA provides that an employer can evade responsibility for an agent`s conduct by entering into a written agreement on ohASA`s compliance procedures and procedures.
If no agreement is reached with a representative in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 2, of OHASA, it may result in possible liability. Ensuring a clear and unequivocal agreement in this regard will provide a higher level of security and a means by which the parties can resolve their relationships during the construction project. A brief article on the debts created by Section 37 of the OHS Act and compensation for the „famous“ agreement 37.2 #compliance #healthandsafety #safety #indemnification #ohsact #law everything necessary to ensure the health and safety of workers in the field.