FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: nearlythere on October 03, 2011, 05:56:23 PM
-
Views please.
Fred and Wilma Flintstone jointly own a nursing home trading as Flintstone Nursing Home Inc and employs 19 staff. Fred also has a smaller business he runs himself and has 1 employee. Does Fred, as himself, employ more than 4 persons for the purposes of having to record the Assessment for his smaller business?
-
Does his smaller business require a license under an enactment to operate?
-
Does his smaller business require a license under an enactment to operate?
Lets say no.
-
Hi NT
I can answer this from a RR(FS)O viewpoint.
You treat each business interest seperately
So with Fred's first business (the care home) he would need to record the findings.
His other business is not connected with the care home and he only employs four, so assuming there are no licenses made under enactment is in force to run that business, or an alterations notice is not in force then he doesn't have to record the findings
You go for the aggregate number of employees in same business, but do notclub together employees from other business intrests belonging to the same RP if that makes sense
-
There is nothing that says that if an alterations notice is in force that he has to record the findings......
[Civvy waits patiently for a bite]
Anyway, to progress NT's point, if in a shop called "Golf Balls For Sale" I employ 3 people to sell golf balls for me, and in a different shop called "We Buy Golf Balls" I employ 3 people to buy golf balls for me, surely I quite truly employ 6 people?
Now if I start a limited company called "We Have More Balls Than You Ltd" which employs 4 people, then I still only employ 6, but the company I have created employs 4.
It has been made clear that the requirement to record is based on the number of persons the business entity employs, so while being "Civvyfso trading as 'whatever' ", I am the entity, and it could be argued that the RRFSO states clearly that I have to record the findings. (I am the employer, and I do employ 5 or more)
You can push the scenario a little further and have all the shops next door to each other. Are we bothered then about the total number of employees? What if I put an intercommunicating door between them so I can get from on to another quicker? What if I bring the buying and selling employees into the same building?
All that being said, it is a point which I hope nobody ever spends any money trying to prove one way or another as it would be a pointless waste of money or time. It's best practice to record, simply get it done and stop being such a ****. :)
-
Yes, I agree record everything. However I can see the legal eagles looking for another pay day arguing this one.
Anyway think of the fun you can have taking yourself to court in the case of "Civvyfso trading as whatever" v Civvyfso MD of "We Have More Balls Than You Ltd." ;D
-
Civvy is "We Talk More Balls Than You Plc" also one of yours? ;) ;D :D
If I own Midland Retty Cattle Farms Ltd and employ 3 people
then I own Midland Retty Heavy Industries producing engine component and employ 2 people then I clearly employ 5 people on aggregate. But those businesses are totally unconnected and thus I don't feel you can "club them together"
But as already said you may as well just record everything anyway.
-
Any limited company is an individual body corporate and owned by the shareholders. The Directors are employees.
So it does not matter how many companies you are the director of each comany, as an employer, is considered in its own right.
Thats absolutely clear and beyond any doubt or argument. (I think.)
-
I agree Kurnal.
Midland Retty Cattle Farms Ltd are the employer in one case, but since Midland Retty Heavy industries do not seem to be a limited company then the status of employer would fall to Midland as a person. In the case of a limited company, the company is essentially seen as a person which action can be taken against. For us to serve a notice on the limited company the notice would be served on the company, but in the other case the notice would be served on "Midland Retty".
"We Talk More Balls Than You PLC" is clearly a rival company... Set up in the Midlands area I suspect. :P
-
"We Talk More Balls Than You Plc"
We Have More Balls Than You Ltd
...club them together...
Bad pun or am I looking too deeply ........In the rough ;D
-
Par for the course I guess.
-
I agree Kurnal.
Midland Retty Cattle Farms Ltd are the employer in one case, but since Midland Retty Heavy industries do not seem to be a limited company then the status of employer would fall to Midland as a person. In the case of a limited company, the company is essentially seen as a person which action can be taken against. For us to serve a notice on the limited company the notice would be served on the company, but in the other case the notice would be served on "Midland Retty".
"We Talk More Balls Than You PLC" is clearly a rival company... Set up in the Midlands area I suspect. :P
Midland Rotweiller Heavy Industries only employs 2 people Civvy therefore you cant do him. Drop ball scenario. foul. one stroke. if you dont mind.
-
This may seem a stupid question but what if Piglet Ltd owns lots of stores in Schottland and one in England. Its lead authority is Scottish but there is a problem with its English store. Would the owner be tried under Scottish or English regs?
Im guessing it is a stupid question and of course it would be under English but how would that work? Would the Scots extradite them?! ;)
-
Midland Rotweiller Heavy Industries only employs 2 people Civvy therefore you cant do him. Drop ball scenario. foul. one stroke. if you dont mind.
What has the number of employees got to do with whether we can serve a notice or not? The only point I am making with the notice scenario is who/what is legally seen as the employer/RP.
In the Heavy Industries example, any notice would be served on Midland as a person. As Midland is the employer in this case.
In the Cattle Farms Ltd example, any notice would be served on the company. As the company is the employer in this case.
These are two specific and legally separate employers.
-
I will concede to Civvy's explanation of the legalities behind this.
If both my companies are limited companies they are legally separate.
If they aren't legally seperate then the total number of employees from each undertaking can be taken in aggregate.
Sounds fair... I knew I was half right(ish)... sort of.... perhaps...
Well done Civvy - a well deserved drink at the 19th Hole awaits you.
-
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?
-
Thank you sir. I will sink it in one.
-
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.(?)
-
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.
-
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
-
or an alterations notice is in force (that requires it)
Top marks sir!
-
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?
-
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 ;)
-
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.