To record or not to record

[nearlythere]

Is this really a case of poor legislation writing and was it really meant to be worded like that? Did the scribe really intend to omit the phrase "in the building/premises/place" after the number of persons employed? I have a South African client which employs oodles of people in SA and two in a single office in Belfast. The legislation requires a recorded FRA. Now is that not a tad stupid?

[CivvyFSO]

Thank you sir. I will sink it in one.

[Midland Retty]

Is this really a case of poor legislation writing and was it really meant to be worded like that? Did the scribe really intend to omit the phrase "in the building/premises/place" after the number of persons employed? I have a South African client which employs oodles of people in SA and two in a single office in Belfast. The legislation requires a recorded FRA. Now is that not a tad stupid?

I agree NT, and you have better stated what I was trying to get across in earlier postings.

I dont think it is in the spirit of the order to work in the way described above, because as you say, it would seem unfair.

However Civvy does put forward a strong argument that legally it could be construde as such in a court of law unless the RP has several companies deemed to be legally seperate.

I guess as always only a judge or jury could decide (?) Im not aware of any further guidance on how to interpret the legislation in this respect.(?)

[nearlythere]

Is this really a case of poor legislation writing and was it really meant to be worded like that? Did the scribe really intend to omit the phrase "in the building/premises/place" after the number of persons employed? I have a South African client which employs oodles of people in SA and two in a single office in Belfast. The legislation requires a recorded FRA. Now is that not a tad stupid?

I agree NT, and you have better stated what I was trying to get across in earlier postings.

I dont think it is in the spirit of the order to work in the way described above, because as you say, it would seem unfair.

However Civvy does put forward a strong argument that legally it could be construde as such in a court of law unless the RP has several companies deemed to be legally seperate.

I guess as always only a judge or jury could decide (?) Im not aware of any further guidance on how to interpret the legislation in this respect.(?)

This from the guide to the guide:-
If an organisation employs five or more people, the premises are licensed43 or an alterations notice is in force (that requires it), then the significant findings of the fire risk assessment and the details of any group of persons considered as being especially at risk must be recorded.
For the avoidance of doubt, where employees are spread across different sites, e.g. the five employed persons are distributed between three premises a record of relevant information would be required at each location44.

[wee brian]

Its about reducing red tape for small businesses, not reducing it for big firms that are spread out over different sites.

Interesting question about a person (singular human being) with more than one business. I suppose if we are talking about a sole trader then he might employ lots of people doing different things for different "businesses". but he would be a RP with more than 5 employees.

However if he owned a number of separate companies constituted as bodies coorporate. then each company could have up to 5 without getting caught for a written RA.

All a bit academic but kind of interesting

[CivvyFSO]

or an alterations notice is in force (that requires it)

Top marks sir!

[Daffodil]

I am new to this so prepared to be shot down in flames. 

If an employer employs 4 people, technically there are 4 employees, under definitions in the RRFSO and employee is a person who is or is treated as an employee for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and related expressions are to be construded accordingly.

If the employer works in the same premises do they then come under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, therefore a there are 5 employees (under the definition in the RRFSO) and a Fire Risk Assessment is required to be recorded?

[kurnal]

A director is classed as an employee of a limited company. Someone else being pedantic is bound to point out that it is the prescribed information that must be recorded commonly known as the significant findings but I would personally never try to score such pernickety brownie points

[Mike Buckley]

Just to add to the fun, the FSO refers the the number of employees not the number of employees in a premises. Hence if the company has one shop with 4 employees it does not need to record the findings however if it has 3 shops with 2 employees in each shop it does. Go figure.