Article 22

[greatwhite843]

Can some help me to clarify in my own head the meaning of Article 22.

I have noticed different opinions and interpretations as to the meaning of the article.  So hopefully you may be able to give me some clarification.

I am of the understanding that article 22 applies only to multi occupied premises.  Making responsible persons from different employers Coordinate and Cooperate with each other.  It is clear that it relates to Multi occupied premises and sites when you read where this article came from (Management Of Health And Safety At Work Regs 1999).  However it appears that when this was transposed into article 22 the wording changed and made the meaning quite vague.

The other interpretation I have heard is that you can also apply this article to an employee employer relationship. Eg. Making the owner of a premises coord and coop with his manager.  This seems a little strange that it would be needed in these circumstances as the Responsible person could be more than one person within an organisation and therefore they would all need to comply with the order anyway.

Please could you clarify the intended meaning as the wording of the legislation is a little unclear.

Thanks for your help

[Tom Sutton]

I agree with your view I believe it only refers to RP's (responsible persons in accordance with article 3) as Kurnal says RP in capital letters and is only relevant in multi-Occ's. There is only one RP in an organisation in most cases its the employer and those that assist the RP are competent persons not rp's (literal meaning).

I also disagree with 22,(2) In my opinion there is no RP who has overall responsibility(badly worded).

[ahmedh]

The other interpretation I have heard is that you can also apply this article to an employee employer relationship. Eg. Making the owner of a premises coord and coop with his manager.  This seems a little strange that it would be needed in these circumstances as the Responsible person could be more than one person within an organisation and therefore they would all need to comply with the order anyway.

In terms of employer and employee relationship i would think that 7b of the H&S at work act is the reference for this, if required:

7 General duties of employees at work. It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—
(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.

I think you will have a hard time finding an overall RP for the building where there is multiple occupancy unless a contract is in place which is alluded to (having an agreement).

[tmprojects]

The other interpretation I have heard is that you can also apply this article to an employee employer relationship. Eg. Making the owner of a premises coord and coop with his manager.  This seems a little strange that it would be needed in these circumstances as the Responsible person could be more than one person within an organisation and therefore they would all need to comply with the order anyway.

you are right it is not.

This is covered by

Safety assistance
18.—(1) The responsible person must, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures.

(2) Where the responsible person appoints persons in accordance with paragraph (1), he must make arrangements for ensuring adequate co-operation between them.

(3) The responsible person must ensure that the number of persons appointed under paragraph (1), the time available for them to fulfil their functions and the means at their disposal are adequate having regard to the size of the premises, the risks to which relevant persons are exposed and the distribution of those risks throughout the premises.

[CivvyFSO]

I disagree.

The normal employer/employee relationship, so far as RRFSO requirements are concerned, is covered by article 23 of the RRFSO. General Duties of Employees at Work. This mirrors the HSAWA requirement menationed by Ahmed. The competent person appointed under article 18 is a specific person, (or persons) i.e. The company H&S bod, the hospital fire officer etc.

Article 23 leads to a specific offence under the RRFSO which is not aimed at the employer. Most of the offences state that it is an offence for the Responsible Person not to do (or to do) such and such, where that leads to relevant persons being put at risk of death/serious injury. There are a specific set of offences where it is an offence for 'any person' to do (or not do) something and article 23 is in that section.

Article 22 is purely for joint responsibilities over the same areas.

Details regarding article 22 from Guidance Note No. 1:

"Where more than one responsible person shares, or has duties in respect of a premises
(whether on a temporary or a permanent basis), each must take all reasonable steps to
co-operate and co-ordinate with the others in relation to the measures they take, and
inform the others of the risks to relevant persons arising out of the conduct of their
undertaking."

[tmprojects]

Civvy. i think his original point was  'Making the owner of a premises coord and coop with his manager'

If  my understanding of his point is correct then i disagree with your disagree, it is not Article.23.

Article 23 requires the employee(manager) to cooperate with their employer(owner). It does not require the employer to coop. Therefore the employer could not receive an enforcement notice or be prosecuted under this article.

The requirement for an employer to cooperate with his manager would be Article 18(2) Where the responsible person appoints persons in accordance with paragraph (1), he must make arrangements for ensuring adequate co-operation between them.

I am making a bit of an assumption here(i would say reasonable) by considering the manager as a competent person. If, as you could, do not consider him to be a CP then;

Article 19 Provision of information to employees would apply. This also references numerous other articles.

As would Article 10 - ''Must'' do so on the principals specified in part 3 of schedule 1 )

However....

if the intention of his statement was where does it require them to coop and coord with each other? Then i would say all of the above articles apply.

[CivvyFSO]

Article 18 puts a duty on the RP to appoint one of more CP, and to 'arrange' co-operation between CP's. This is not a duty on the CP so there is nothing in this article that forces a CP to do anything.

From guidance note No. 1:
"It should be noted that the responsible person cannot
devolve their personal responsibilities to a consultant or employee."

Managers etc get specific mention in article 32, and can be held accountable for any offence caused with their knowledge or due to their neglect, regardless of whether the RP is guilty of the same offence.

Article 22 puts a duty on RP's only, where there is more than one RP. Article 22 cannot be used for the employer/manager scenario as the manager cannot be the RP since we have an employer fulfilling the role of RP and the inability of an employer to devolve their responsibility. (Saying "owner/manager" is muddying the waters, because if the owner employs a manager then they are clearly an employer, apart from the case of where a building owner employs a managing agent. The managing agent scenario is dealt with under articles 5(3)/5(4).)

Therefore, IMO, the need for the manager to co-operate with the employer comes firmly under article 23.

Article 23 puts a duty on employees only and I agree that we could not serve a notice on an employer regarding this article. It would be rather hard to serve a notice on an employee too, as an enforcement notice has to have a finish date, so we would essentially be saying that you only need to cooperate until such-and-such a date. This article is more use if used simply to point towards where an employee is creating an offence by their behaviour.

Also, why would we need a specific duty for the RP to cooperate with employees? The RP has all its general duties regarding fire safety covered adequately by articles 8-22 of The Order. The Order tells the RP what to do, the RP tells the employee what to do. Simples?

[tmprojects]

Civvy,

Sorry if we seem to have crossed wires. I felt this might be the case which is why I tried to be clear to point out  what I thought was the question;

where does it require the employer to coop with his employees, NOT were it requires the employee to coop with his employer.

There is a lot to respond to so I will try and break it down into logical bits

you are right that the following

Article 18(2) Where the responsible person appoints persons in accordance with paragraph (1), he must make arrangements for ensuring adequate co-operation between them.

Refers to CP’s co-op. sorry I miss read that. I took ‘them’ as being the RP and the CP. The Guidance note clears that one up.

But, Para. 92 of  GN.1 to which you refer does state.
the RP is under a duty to ensure that any Competent person is given such information as is necessary to enable that person properly to carryout his functions.
Doesn’t that mean he has to coop and coord with the persons he appoints?

Article 22.
 I’m not sure if you miss read my statement ‘all the above articles’ but i was only referring to the articles within my post. So yes we agree here. Its not this. Definitely.

Article 23
I also agree with you on this. I did say ‘Article 23 requires the employee(manager) to cooperate with their employer(owner).

So we agree here.

So, my main point. And, to your question of why have a specific duty to require the RP to coop and coord with his employees?

I hoped I answered this too when referring to articles 19 & 10. There is no need to specifically place a duty on the RP because its addressed in most aspects of the order. Hence my point.

Article 19 Provision of information to employees would apply. This also references numerous other articles. As would Article 10 - ''Must'' do so on the principals specified in part 3 of schedule 1

what i was trying to do was pinpoint specific areas were you could 'hang your hat'

article 23
My indication here was to point out that nothing in this article required the employer to coop or coord And, you are right in that you wouldn’t serve a notice under article 23. but you could prosecute.

In summary.

Its NOT article 22.

Article 23 requires the employee to coop and coord.

Pretty much all of 8-22 requires the RP to coop and coord.

But can be pinned down in Articles 10, 18 & 19

[CivvyFSO]

I think much of this depends on your take of the word co-operation. I don't think that there is a direct article that makes an employer co-operate with its employees because I do not think that there is a need as it is the employers ultimate responsibility to ensure that the employee is safe. There is the need to pass on relevant information from the risk assessment etc addressed under article 19, but this is passing information from the RP to the employee, this is not reacting to any input from the employee to the RP.

Article 10 is about 'principles', not the actual measures. It deals with what is stated to be the ethos of the order, i.e. one of preventing and/or reducing risks.

To sit on the other side of the fence for a bit: You could make a tenuous link to article 11. To have arrangements that are suitable in order to monitor and review the preventive and protective measures could require that you have a system whereby if an employee reports a shortcoming, there is something in place to react to their findings. If you would consider this to be co-operation, then maybe this would be the best article to consider?

[greatwhite843]

To all who have taken the time to post

Thanks for all your answers an opinions.  They have really clarified in my own mind the intention of Article22 being for the Multi occ scenario.

I have had lengthy debates with collegues and through using your comments have now converted the majority to use article 18 for the manager/RP coop and coord.

Thanks again

[tmprojects]

I think much of this depends on your take of the word co-operation. I don't think that there is a direct article that makes an employer co-operate with its employees because I do not think that there is a need as it is the employers ultimate responsibility to ensure that the employee is safe. There is the need to pass on relevant information from the risk assessment etc addressed under article 19, but this is passing information from the RP to the employee, this is not reacting to any input from the employee to the RP.

I think you have hit the nail on the head by saying its what your take on the word co-operation.

I completely agree that employee safety is the employers ultimate responsibility. But... In my opinion, there is a need. Businesses will get out of what ever they can. full stop. My view is the same as yours, there is no requirement for a specific article for this because the whole order effectively infers the duty of a RP to ensure the safety of their employees.

but we are talking about co-operation not about ensuring the safety of employees.
co-operation comes in many forms and i view providing info to employees as a form of co-operation.

I do feel though that our conversation has come down to semantics. And we have both answered the original question in our own way. And agreed on that.

I think the other point of 'where' does it require the employer to co-op with his employees is, if you wish, another post.

[Tom Sutton]

I think the other point of 'where' does it require the employer to co-op with his employees is, if you wish, another post.

Does the following partly answer the question?

Art 18 (2) Where the responsible person appoints persons in accordance with paragraph (1), he must make arrangements for ensuring adequate co-operation between them. ( the RP the employer the competent persons the employees in most cases)

Art 19 (1) The responsible person must provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on...... ( you said " I view providing info to employees as a form of co-operation" is this not co-operation?

[tmprojects]

TW - Please read through from the start. you will see that your observations are in essence our discusion.

Would be gratefull of your views though

TM

[SamFIRT]

Sorry but who is TW?  *confused*

[Tom Sutton]

I think the other point of 'where' does it require the employer to co-op with his employees is, if you wish, another post.

TM I was responding to the above quote and the way I see it, both Art 18 and Art 19 is about the employer co-operating with his employees, it is obvious I have misunderstood your question.

Sam AKA Tam by CT.