depth with a ruling of the Court Supreme Court of the issue of responsibility of the RSPP.
The Criminal Cassation Chamber Weekdays, Judgement No. 32357 of August 26, 2010 reiterated that the charge of prevention and protection is an auxiliary of the employer and works as a consultant of the same and also that his appointment is not equivalent to the delegation of functions. The RSPP is considered to be only a tool the employer who uses his work to better meet the obligations of the recipient is unique and the same can not be directly held accountable for its actions because it lacks an effective decision-making power.
The project supervisor and the director of a security contractor and the holder of a subcontractor, working on a construction site subject of extensive renovations of a building, were held responsible, because general and specific to a work accident occurring to an employee of the company subcontractor who, slipping on a concrete staircase located nearby the construction site and without a handrail, fell from a height of about three meters ruining violently to the ground by getting injuries from which it derived a disease and an inability to wait for a routine occupations period exceeding 40 days.
The two defendants have appealed to the Supreme Court putting first points out that in fact had to recognize the 'abnormal behavior of the careless worker who, in a totally unexpectedly, to fetch his hat, which was flown in the wind, had used a scale not included in the site and external to it and attributing the blame to the RSPP appointed.
The actions of the defendants were deemed unfounded, however, by the Supreme Court which held primarily as a reminder that the employer, as a direct charge of work safety, it must operate continuous monitoring and pressing to impose that workers comply with legislation preventional and avoided the temptation is always present, even to escape it by establishing working practices of convenience perhaps, but not correct, and then in this perspective, the characteristics that traditionally excludes dell'abnormità behavior, even imprudent, the employee who is not completely falls outside its remit, in the portion of work assigned and are used as tools of which is in charge, since the observance of preventive measures also aim to prevent errors and violations of the worker.
components of the prevention and protection, being regarded as mere 'auxiliary' of the employer, can not be held accountable for their actions directly, just as it has no actual decision-making power. They are only 'consultants' and the results of their studies and their development, as in any other area of \u200b\u200bthe administration company.
Thus, the Section continues working, the designation of the RSPP, the employer is obliged to do, does not amount to delegation of functions useful for the exemption of the employer from liability for breach the accident prevention regulations, it would enable him to transfer to others, the director, the position of security as it ordinarily takes to workers. Position to guarantee that, as we know, lies with the employer as a statutory obligation to prevent the services concerned verification of adverse events related to the performance of work. In other words, the designation of the RSPP has nothing to do with the institution of the delegation of functions (see hours Decree No. 81 of 2008, article 16) and therefore may not have the same significance for the exemption of employer's liability work.
The Supreme Court has finally seized the opportunity with this decision to invoke its powers and duties assigned by law to RSPP which include the requirement of identifying the factors risk and the measures taken for the safety and healthy work environment, and to reiterate that the RSPP acting on behalf of the employer, playing only a 'business' advice' in the field of risk prevention in the workplace, so that the results of its activities are for the employer, which is responsible to comply with the guidelines offered him, then removing the hazardous situation and concludes that then the employer is and remains the holder of the position of guarantee in that field, is excluded which might improperly invoked the institution of the delegation of functions attended by the mere appointment of the RSPP.
MD
0 comments:
Post a Comment