An agreement with the agent should include, among other things, the following topics: in the construction sector, there is a practice in which an agreement applies to paragraph 37, paragraph 2, of ohASA between the “employer” and a “contractor” (who would also be an “employer” for OHASA purposes) in circumstances in which the contracting person`s staff works in a workplace. By such an agreement, the contractor, as the “agent” of the employer, agrees to be responsible for the obligations and obligations within the meaning of OHASA and the rules required in this form, insofar as these obligations and obligations relate to the work to be performed in the workplace. The employer can therefore avoid liability if it has given written consent to the agreements and procedures with the contractor to ensure that the contractor complies with the ohASA provisions. 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. 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. With regard to criminal liability due to the agent`s conduct, Article 37, paragraph 1, of OHASA provides for the possible liability of the client by the legal principle of “assistant responsibility”. Article 37, paragraph 1 of ohASA provides that the conduct of a worker who constitutes a criminal offence within the meaning of OHASA may, in certain circumstances, be attributed to an employer who, in turn, may be held responsible for such conduct.
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.