In the construction sector, there is a practice in which an agreement, under Article 37, paragraph 2, of OHASA, is reached between the “employer” and a “contractor” (who would also be an “employer” for the purposes of OHASA) when the contractor`s workers work 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. 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. With the entry into force of the construction code in 2014 (the “regulations”), which are mandatory under the 1993 Labour Protection Act (“OHASA”), additional tariffs are now imposed on the “customer” who did not exist under the previous regulatory regime. For example, the owner now assumes the obligation to establish a fundamental risk assessment for a construction project and to apply for a building permit based on the situation. An agreement with the agent should address, among other things, the following issues: Given the client`s potential liability for the conduct of his representative, it would be desirable to enter into a similar agreement to settle the relationship between the client and the agent. In cases where the client does not have the expertise and experience to carry out a construction project, such an agreement would be essential to protect the interests of the contractor. 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.