Reply to: Client co's tulip chair

[SueEllen]

Should be said though... The client still has to carry out a risk assessment on the equipment being used regardless who supplies it. If you or permie supplies own chair you can only do so if the client carries out a risk assessment and makes sure it conforms to all the relevant acts and agrees. A client can't just sit back and ignore people violating H&S on their site. They are involved.

No idea if you could potentially sue a client for letting you use a crap chair and causing injury. I would imagine if the risk assessment said it was an issue and they let it continue or the risk assessment wasn't done properly they could.

I would imagine it would be almost unheard of for an employee to supply their own chair.

I've been on sites where permies have brought in their own stuff like chairs and monitors.

I only asked them about the chairs because of their design.

[dx4100]

Should be said though... The client still has to carry out a risk assessment on the equipment being used regardless who supplies it. If you or permie supplies own chair you can only do so if the client carries out a risk assessment and makes sure it conforms to all the relevant acts and agrees. A client can't just sit back and ignore people violating H&S on their site. They are involved.

No idea if you could potentially sue a client for letting you use a crap chair and causing injury. I would imagine if the risk assessment said it was an issue and they let it continue or the risk assessment wasn't done properly they could.

I would imagine it would be almost unheard of for an employee to supply their own chair.

[northernladuk]

I would have also thought that bringing a chair in could contribute to bringing your own equipment onto a client site which could also help IR35.

Again another fairly minor point. It would be best if you can evidence the back problem in case they just write it off as you just wanting a better chair. I'll bet permies can supply their own chairs if they really want to so not really going to make any difference around just a chair. If you have to provide your own specialist kit due to you managing your H&S properly will look a lot better than just having a Herman Miller when the permies have crap cause you can.

[vadhert]

I would have also thought that bringing a chair in could contribute to bringing your own equipment onto a client site which could also help IR35.

[northernladuk]

The point I am making is that providing a new comfortable chair just for a contractor to have less backache smell's slightly IR35-ish to me. Uneducated guess or not.

It might possibly be when it comes right down to the wire but it's going to be a very small flag at worst and once you start bringing H&S in to it no one will want to dig too deeply.

[vadhert]

Oh ok, so you are guessing....

What the client is likely to pay for or not is very much client dependent.

Why would they pay for it ?

• Because they want the contractors skills?
  
• They understand their responsibilities under the H&S legislation ? and If he used them he could potentially sue?
  
• It can be reused for other future employees maybe just like the laptop and desk ?

But these are all besides the point.... The issue was IR35 and it would seem you was offering a uneducated guess on the issue.

The point I am making is that providing a new comfortable chair just for a contractor to have less backache smell's slightly IR35-ish to me. Uneducated guess or not.

[SueEllen]

I don't know what the law says but they won't want to be responsible if their chair causes further complications for which you sue them. I guess they could say it's your problem and if you are incapable of supplying services safely they'll pull the gig.

I'd be more than happy to ignore IR35 on this one. It's so borderline it would be a very minor flag at worst. IMO H&S is such a minefield no one could be blamed for trying to do the right thing.

It's called the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

It's a catch all act to ensure organisations and individuals in charge can't wiggle out if their legal H&S obligations. Hence mentioning the mirror case.

[dx4100]

No its reality. If a contractor on 6 month contract at a site has discomfort after an injury then the client isn't likely to fork out for a new chair for this contractor. They are here for a fixed period, why would they pay to make the temporary resource comfortable when during the gig they had an injury?

I cant make this any clearer can I?

Oh ok, so you are guessing....

What the client is likely to pay for or not is very much client dependent.

Why would they pay for it ?

• Because they want the contractors skills?
  
• They understand their responsibilities under the H&S legislation ? and If he used them he could potentially sue?
  
• It can be reused for other future employees maybe just like the laptop and desk ?

But these are all besides the point.... The issue was IR35 and it would seem you was offering a uneducated guess on the issue.

[northernladuk]

No its reality. If a contractor on 6 month contract at a site has discomfort after an injury then the client isn't likely to fork out for a new chair for this contractor. They are here for a fixed period, why would they pay to make the temporary resource comfortable when during the gig they had an injury?

I cant make this any clearer can I?

More likely to bin him. Companies can be very risk averse when it comes to H&S. The directors can go to jail for breaches so can understand why they take it seriously.

[SueEllen]

No its reality. If a contractor on 6 month contract at a site has discomfort after an injury then the client isn't likely to fork out for a new chair for this contractor. They are here for a fixed period, why would they pay to make the temporary resource comfortable when during the gig they had an injury?

I cant make this any clearer can I?

Because you can sue them.

Or report them for breaching H&S and make their life hell.

[SueEllen]

What a completely ridiculous comparison.

Read what the act is called.

[vadhert]

Have a read of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

One recent famous use of it was fining Hugo Boss when a mirror fell on a boy and killed him when the boy and his father were shopping.

What a completely ridiculous comparison.

[vadhert]

Anything to back this up ? Link or otherwise ? or are you just guessing ?

I am just guessing above but I think its an educated guess.

No its reality. If a contractor on 6 month contract at a site has discomfort after an injury then the client isn't likely to fork out for a new chair for this contractor. They are here for a fixed period, why would they pay to make the temporary resource comfortable when during the gig they had an injury?

I cant make this any clearer can I?

[northernladuk]

Wet sign: Yes

New chair (As per context of this thread): No

Client co have provided a chair. Tulip or not. Personal circumstance or injury requiring a different chair should be provided by the contractor and not client co.

I don't know what the law says but they won't want to be responsible if their chair causes further complications for which you sue them. I guess they could say it's your problem and if you are incapable of supplying services safely they'll pull the gig.

I'd be more than happy to ignore IR35 on this one. It's so borderline it would be a very minor flag at worst. IMO H&S is such a minefield no one could be blamed for trying to do the right thing.

[SueEllen]

IR35

I know employers have a duty of care to their staff but contractors are not their staff thus shouldn't be treated as such.

Have a read of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

One recent famous use of it was fining Hugo Boss when a mirror fell on a boy and killed him when the boy and his father were shopping.