Hi Jono

The hire of tools and equipment is covered by the Heath & Safety at Work Act 2015, see Clause 42 Duty of PCBU who supplies plant, substances, or structures The meaning of supply is covered in clause 21.
For electrical items being hired out see Electrical(Safety) Regulation 15 Using works, installations, fittings, appliances, and associated equipment 1(a) and Regulation 26.

I'm not aware of anything else, so will watch this space with interest

regards
SteveH

There are also additional requirements for gas equipment

https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/gas/installations-and-networks/operational-safety/hiring-or-leasing-gas-equipment/

Thanks Steve:up:

Thanks Mike

Hi guys
I read this with interest....

Does anyone have a view on building leases? Does it come under the same category as equipment?

As a building leasor (the person that owns the building) I imagine their responsibility is to ensure the building is fit for use, ie with cert of fitness etc, but that activities undertaken by the leasee are their responsibility?

Do you think the leasor needs to conduct an assessment of the applicant leasee to ensure their H&S systems, similar to a contractor prequal?

Thanks
Hilary

In general I would say yes;
Landlord should provide a safe place to work,
Leaseholder should undertake work safely.

The caveat would be for multi tenanted buildings / lots where the activities of one leaseholder could affect those of another. Example being if one leaseholder has an ammonia chiller / cold room - the other leaseholders likely wouldn't consider an ammonia release as a emergency scenario to manage but could very likely be caught up in one. Having an effective process for all party involved in the building(s) to consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities is critical. So this would be were a pre-lease assessment might be needed to ensure that none of the existing tenants will be a risk due to the new tenant.

The legal duty would be under HSWA Section 37 Duty of PCBU who manages or controls workplace, with consideration of subsection (4) that the duty is limited to the extent that the PCBU is involves the management or control (in whole or in part) of the workplace, e.g. the landlord isn't responsible for the a leaseholders unguarded power tools.

There was a case a few years back where a landlord was prosecuted because they failed to manage the risk of a dead tree at a daycare centre that was operating on their land (the daycare centre was also prosecuted - WorkSafe NZ Summary and Court Records

Hi Hilary
Some obligations for building owners and tenants are spelled out in these regulations.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fire Safety, Evacuation Procedures, and Evacuation Schemes) Regulations 2018

So things like means of escape, evacuation plans, fire fighting equipment, the requirement that building owners and occupiers must take reasonable precautions with respect to fire prevention caused by wiring or appliances connected to that wiring. This could be annual Thermographic Inspection of switchboards, control cabinets (your insurance company might already require this) test & tag of appliances at suitable intervals according to their use and risk profile, the fitting of Arc Fault Detection Devices

awesome thanks Steve

thanks Matt

OK so what about if, in that multi-tenanted building you have some tenants who are large companies (ie have their own H&S processes) and small Mum & Dad companies (who don't)....
Would you expect the Mum & Dad businesses to be guided by the landlords H&S system? (I'm thinking in the same way as a contractor can be asked to work under the principals OHSM if they don't have one)

Also, most historical lease agreements are silent on H&S, or only have a minimal line to acknowledge the leasee must comply with statues etc. Is this still relevant, or do more modern lease agreements include more rigour around H&S obligations?

Also, most historical lease agreements are silent on H&S, or only have a minimal line to acknowledge the leasee must comply with statues etc. Is this still relevant, or do more modern lease agreements include more rigour around H&S obligations? — Hilary Kearns

With WorkSafe lining up the owners of Whakaari/White Island, along with tour operators, GNS etc etc, this is a developing topic, for which Matt's citing of Heng Tong Investment Limited provides precedence/guidance, so the answer has to be landlords need to take more interest in their buildings and tenants.

You have asbestos management plans for tenanted properties I guess?

OK so what about if, in that multi-tenanted building you have some tenants who are large companies (ie have their own H&S processes) and small Mum & Dad companies (who don't)....
Would you expect the Mum & Dad businesses to be guided by the landlords H&S system? (I'm thinking in the same way as a contractor can be asked to work under the principals OHSM if they don't have one) — Hilary Kearns

I would be wary of a tenant falling under a landlord's H&S system - as they really should be set up to manage different risks. Some of those risks may be the same and could/should be coordinated on, but just wrapping the smaller tenant into the landlord systems runs the chance of the tenant missing a critical risk in their business that the landlord does not typically encounter (and so doesn't have anything in place to manage it).
It should not really matter the size of the tenant, the information required to be shared with the other affected parties should be the same. The smaller companies may need help in understanding what they need to provide, which might be done through more consultation with them or sharing the examples of the tenants with more established systems.
It is different than the main contractor / small subcontractor scenario because both of those are in the same general industry with similar general risk management approaches - however we still see instances where the client takes on too much of a prescriptive approach to the contractors work mehtods and can actually create greater risk by forcing the contractor to comply with their systems than for the contractor to manage their own risk they bring to the work and site the way they know best (as the "experts" of their subcontracting field).

Good on you @MattD2 for calling out the 'elephant in the room'.

I would see this as being captured under the "Overlapping Duties" requirements of the legislation. Worksafe offer some guidance here: https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/getting-started/understanding-the-law/overlapping-duties/overlapping-duties-quick-guide/

thanks for your input guys :)

I've yet to see good practice around this. Hire their biggest chainsaw and they talk you through starting it but don't ask what you intend to use it for or ask to see your PPE, or what you know about dropping trees

I've yet to see good practice around this. Hire their biggest chainsaw and they talk you through starting it but don't ask what you intend to use it for or ask to see your PPE, or what you know about dropping trees — robert p

With the hire of equipment, the responsibility is to supply equipment that is safe to use, meets any applicable standards/legal requirements, how that equipment is sub-sequentially used, is the hirers
responsibility.