Employment agencies

Samsung_Note2

Asking on behalf of a friend...im PAYE.

Been asked and seen question posted hundreds of times and everyone including agencies give differing answers or refuse to answer.

Someone is a sole trader and operates plant machinery on building sites,works for various agencies and is paid by various payroll companies.

Its agreed in terms and conditions of each agency that the sole trader is insured for accident/death and third party liability whilst operating the machine which he has been trained and licensed to drive (cpcs)

However some agencies or site agents will ask that Plant operator to get out of the machine and either carry out labouring duties or help with tradesmen (carry/lifting etc)...now the sole Trader is not operating the machine its my understanding he is no longer carrying out the task he was employed to do by the agency or the payroll company,so wouldn't be insured if he gets hurt and needs time off work and no work equals no money.

Some agencies will state yes your covered out of the machine as site has insurance,when asked will the site pay for sickness or injury they refuse to answer...the site agent says your nothing to do with him as your a sole trader and the payroll company who is actually your employer not the agency say its down to the agency.

The argument for buying your own insurance doesn't work...question is if the Agency insist on you doing manual work out side of the machine are you 100% covered if the worst happens.

Should add that work on sites could be 1 day or 1 week..1 month ect...only ever short periods hence working for multiple agencies and payroll companies.

sangie595

This is a question only the insurers can answer. There must be insurance in place, regardless of whether he's in the machine or out of it - he couldn't stay in the machine all day even if only for toilet breaks!

However, unless you buy your own income protection, company insurance will not cover time off work following an accident, and it certainly doesn't provide individual income protection. It might be the case, if the accident is clearly and unequivocally someone else's fault, that their insurance will eventually pay out lost wages, but that could very easily be years afterwards!

So actually, the argument for buying your own insurance does work - but it's a different type of insurance. If you need to guarantee an income if your are sick, it's income protection insurance that you need. Otherwise, at best, you will have SSP.

comeandgo

It's not unusual for a site manager to expect machine drivers to get out and do other work if the machine is not needed for a while, they are paying for them and would expect them to do some sort of work. Your friend should have insurance for liability, injury and some sort of income when ill.

Samsung_Note2

sangie595 wrote: »

This is a question only the insurers can answer. There must be insurance in place, regardless of whether he's in the machine or out of it - he couldn't stay in the machine all day even if only for toilet breaks!

However, unless you buy your own income protection, company insurance will not cover time off work following an accident, and it certainly doesn't provide individual income protection. It might be the case, if the accident is clearly and unequivocally someone else's fault, that their insurance will eventually pay out lost wages, but that could very easily be years afterwards!

So actually, the argument for buying your own insurance does work - but it's a different type of insurance. If you need to guarantee an income if your are sick, it's income protection insurance that you need. Otherwise, at best, you will have SSP.

I've operated (not currently as PAYE in other industry) the same plant as friend and others who all ask the same question,were covered for accident and death...so whilst operating machine your fine,obviously toilet breaks and leaving machine to go for breaks your aware of your surroundings for the short amount of time it takes to go where your going.

Ok so insurance must be in place...with who,agency/payroll or site agent...each refers back to the other.

Chap i know was helping a Chippie carry 3 sheets of 18mm ply (thats heavy) and chippie lost grip as going upstairs ,result the lad twisted his back and two of his fingers were crushed...two weeks off work,Agency stated "You shouldn't have got out of the cab"...site agent attitude "Get me another driver"..poor !!!!!! has no wages for two weeks.

Should be a simple question/Answer....agency asks you to do manual work,so if your agreeable should they then produce the relevant insurance if something went wrong or would you be expected to trust the agency at there word.?

Samsung_Note2

comeandgo wrote: »

It's not unusual for a site manager to expect machine drivers to get out and do other work if the machine is not needed for a while, they are paying for them and would expect them to do some sort of work. Your friend should have insurance for liability, injury and some sort of income when ill.

Id agree with the ill part as thats beyond anyone control...however as a sole trader why would you need to pay for insurance to be a labourer,when your a machine operator.?

So a machine Op should pay for insurance as site agent can expect them to do two jobs.?

sangie595

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

I've operated (not currently as PAYE in other industry) the same plant as friend and others who all ask the same question,were covered for accident and death...so whilst operating machine your fine,obviously toilet breaks and leaving machine to go for breaks your aware of your surroundings for the short amount of time it takes to go where your going.

Ok so insurance must be in place...with who,agency/payroll or site agent...each refers back to the other.

Chap i know was helping a Chippie carry 3 sheets of 18mm ply (thats heavy) and chippie lost grip as going upstairs ,result the lad twisted his back and two of his fingers were crushed...two weeks off work,Agency stated "You shouldn't have got out of the cab"...site agent attitude "Get me another driver"..poor !!!!!! has no wages for two weeks.

Should be a simple question/Answer....agency asks you to do manual work,so if your agreeable should they then produce the relevant insurance if something went wrong or would you be expected to trust the agency at there word.?

I have already answered this. Your question was "who is responsible for if he is off sick and had no income?," and the answer to that is that in the first instance he is. The reason he is off sick is irrelevant. As is the fact that someone might be liable for his loss of income in the longer term. That is a question of liability, and that is for lawyers, courts and insurers to deal with. So he gets SSP or income protection of his own to deal with the eventuality of being off sick. He gets a lawyer to deal with liability.

sangie595

OP, you appear to misunderstand what insurance is for. Insurance is for liability. It doesn't pay sick pay. It will compensate for lost wages, amongst other things, if the issue of liability is determined. It doesn't pay sick pay. So your friend is still without wages because compensation may take months if not years to be awarded.

Samsung_Note2

sangie595 wrote: »

OP, you appear to misunderstand what insurance is for. Insurance is for liability. It doesn't pay sick pay. It will compensate for lost wages, amongst other things, if the issue of liability is determined. It doesn't pay sick pay. So your friend is still without wages because compensation may take months if not years to be awarded.

Yes agree with you and most likely didn't explain myself,i wasn't referring to sick as in coughs cold or the flu...more so injury which is quite common on sites.

My question was who has the liability...Agency..Site Agent or Payroll company...one of them must be liable if your hurt or injured on site through no fault of your own when carrying out tasks that are not in your job description and that is operating plant..if your out of the cab labouring your no longer covered,,each states the other is...no one says they are.

sangie595

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

Yes agree with you and most likely didn't explain myself,i wasn't referring to sick as in coughs cold or the flu...more so injury which is quite common on sites.

My question was who has the liability...Agency..Site Agent or Payroll company...one of them must be liable if your hurt or injured on site through no fault of your own when carrying out tasks that are not in your job description and that is operating plant..if your out of the cab labouring your no longer covered,,each states the other is...no one says they are.

The answer would be that it is, in the end, for the courts to decide on liability if the insurers and lawyers can't. There is no single answer - every situation would be different. If it prevents him from working then the immediate answer is that he is sick. An injury is no different than flu for sick pay purposes.

Liability for an accident (and any loss of income) would resolve in the longer term, and would be determined on a case by case basis - but I would say that it would usually not be the payroll company because it's nothing to do with them.

I'd also have to point out that there is a party who could be liable that you haven't included- him! Just because it happens on a work site doesn't mean he may not, in fact, be the liable party. If it's his income, then maybe not a factor, but if he does something that causes Lois to someone else, he might be liable and needs to check he is covered.

Samsung_Note2

sangie595 wrote: »

The answer would be that it is, in the end, for the courts to decide on liability if the insurers and lawyers can't. There is no single answer - every situation would be different. If it prevents him from working then the immediate answer is that he is sick. An injury is no different than flu for sick pay purposes.

Liability for an accident (and any loss of income) would resolve in the longer term, and would be determined on a case by case basis - but I would say that it would usually not be the payroll company because it's nothing to do with them.

I'd also have to point out that there is a party who could be liable that you haven't included- him! Just because it happens on a work site doesn't mean he may not, in fact, be the liable party. If it's his income, then maybe not a factor, but if he does something that causes Lois to someone else, he might be liable and needs to check he is covered.

The is he liable for damage to others/property has been asked time and time again...each refers you to the other...lol.

I know your covered whilst in the machine as ive "accidentally" reversed at speed and smashed up a van that was parked in my working area,caused thousands of pounds of damage...no cost to me as operating machine.

That kind of answers my question...and that is no one wants to take ownership,id have thought it would have been pretty clear cut.

Payroll company is actually the employer,the agency places you and the site (agent) is merely supervising the work.

Thanks for thoughts advice....much appreciated.:T

sangie595

It's never that straight forward though, is it? I do hope that the inverted commas don't indicate that you did that purposefully, although I suspect they do. But if they had been able to prove that, the insurance company would have had legitimate grounds to comes after you. So there would be a number of circumstances where the individual may be deemed liable because their action is based on deliberate action or clear cut negligence. To cover all his bases, I'd suggest that he does speak to his own insurer - then he knows quite clearly whether there is anything to worry about. After all, the one thing you can guarantee is that no insurer likes paying out, and if they can find someone else to blame it on....