The OHS service carries out its tasks on the basis of the provisions of the Regulation on occupational health and safety. This regulation indicates the scope of activities of the OHS service – duties and powers. In the event of an imminent threat to health or life at work, the regulations do not impose an absolute obligation on health and safety services to act. On the other hand, they provide for specific rights of OHS specialists in this respect. On the one hand, it seems that such a construction of the regulations is not entirely correct. On the other hand, it has been functioning for years – just like many other absurdities in the field of health and safety.

It will not be a breakthrough thesis, the statement that every employer is responsible for the state of health and safety in the workplace. The employer must also protect the health and life of employees using all available legal technical and organizational means. These are basic assumptions. However, as the PIP checks show, not even the basics are implemented in every case.

Proper implementation of numerous duties in the field of occupational safety requires an appropriate level of knowledge in the area of ohs. Often this knowledge goes beyond the competence and knowledge of the subject presented by statistical employers. For this reason, tasks in the field of technical work safety should be carried out from the level of professionals. They are:

• specialists employed in the OHS service,
• persons employed in other work meeting the qualification requirements provided for the OHS service,
• external specialists.

The issues of the OHS service are basically regulated by the Labour Code, which for obvious reasons does not exhaust the subject. The regulation, seemingly comprehensive, is the implementing act to the Labor Code, i.e. the regulation on the occupational health and safety service. In particular, it regulates the scope of activities of the OHS service. It indicates that „the scope of activity of the OHS service belongs” and that „the OHS service is entitled to”. It should be assumed that the catalogue contained in § 2 of the Regulation defines the obligations of the OHS service. On the other hand, the provision of § 3 of the Regulation is the rights of the OHS service. As you know, the obligation must be fulfilled, and the entitlement must not.

Interestingly, in the permissions directory there is a permission to:

• immediate suspension of the operation of the machine or other technical device in the event of an immediate threat to the life or health of the worker or other persons,
• immediate removal from work of an employee who, by his behavior or manner of performing work, poses a direct threat to his own life or health or that of other persons,
• applying to the employer for immediate suspension of work in the workplace, in its part or in another place designated by the employer to perform work, in the event of an imminent threat to the life or health of employees or other persons.

Are you sure that the reaction of the occupational health and safety service to situations related to the state of immediate threat to health and life is a „right”? So something that depends on the free decision of the person who can use such a right? If we assume that an OHS employee may or may not:

• suspend the operation of the machinery in the event of an imminent threat to health or life,
• remove an employee from work in a situation where his behavior poses an immediate threat to health or life,

how does this relate to the provisions on offenses against the rights of the employee, as well as the provisions of the Criminal Code?

The Labour Code provides for liability for offences addressed to persons responsible for the state of occupational health and safety. On the other hand, the Criminal Code refers to the crime of exposing employees to the imminent danger of loss of life or serious damage to health.

It should be assumed that the reactions of the OHS service regarding an immediate threat to life or health are in no way entitlements. These are legal obligations that are updated in the event of an imminent threat to life or health.

Thus, if you do not react in the event of an imminent threat to life or health, you cannot justify yourself by saying that the reaction was your right, because this action is in § 3 of the Regulation. Especially when there is an accident: severe, collective, fatal, as well as any other disaster involving employees, which will be preceded by a situation of immediate threat to health or life. In this case, however, taking action is the duty of the OHS service, not a right. The argument that issues related to the immediate threat to health and life regulate the rights of the OHS service, not the duties, will not convince not only the PIP inspectors, but also the prosecutor’s office.

Source: https://www.portalbhp.pl/blog/reakcja-na-bezposrednie-zagrozenie-zdrowia-lub-zycia-w-pracy-uprawnienie-czy-obowiazek-sluzby-bhp-9934.html

Projekt otrzymał dofinansowanie z Norwegii poprzez Fundusze Norweskie 2014-2021, w ramach programu „Dialog społeczny – godna praca”.