Responsibility of worker damage

cormie

Just wondering, is there specific laws or legislation surrounding the responsibility a worker has towards damaged items, from say a waitress employee dropping and smashing a plate, or a contracted carpenter dropping a hammer through a glass pane, to something a lot more expensive, say a mechanic causing a few grands worth of damage reversing a car into another one in a showroom.

At what point, if any, is the onus on the worker to pay for their mistake? Is it a case of contract, is it different for an "employee" as opposed to a self employed contractor etc and once it does reach the above excess amount (say for example excess on any claim was 200eur and the business owner has full insurance), is it any different? What's the general practice in this area?

maglite

Below is an assumption,

But an Employer should either pick up the tab or have insurance to cover it.

For larger amounts I'd be expecting the involvement of solicitors/courts before liability is applied.



So what did ya break?

Wishbone Ash

cormie wrote: »

Just wondering, is there specific laws or legislation surrounding the responsibility a worker has towards damaged items

OK Cormie - what did you do with the van tonight?

cormie

Jaysus the speculation is riding high tonight

I didn't do anything, don't worry, just wondering what the situation would be

Mrs OBumble

i would expect that it is different for a self-employed person. All self-employed people should have appropriate insurance in place - where I come from it's called professional indemnity, not sure what the jargon is here.

And <moderation> best not give too many details here if it could come before the courts </moderation>

cormie

Don't worry, nothing to hide here so no worry for courts or anything, just curious

cormie

So nobody has any idea about legislation towards this at all? Is there set rules or would it be dependent on contract? As in, you could make up a contract with somebody that states any damage is their responsibility?

Has anyone experience of working somewhere and damaging something through their own negligence and being requested to cover the cost?

seamus

Yes, it would be perfectly legal for a business to state in an employment contract that damage caused by the employee is payable by them, and to make appropriate deductions from their salary to cover it. There is legislation specifically in place to manage deductions from salary:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0025/sec0005.html#sec5

However, these deductions have to be reasonable and take account of the employee's circumstances. That is, an employer couldn't just take half a month's salary for damages one month, it would have to be spread over many months. There are also a few other requirements as laid out above.

If there is nothing in the contract about it, then an employer cannot make any deductions from salary for damages. It would be implied that the employer takes the hit. However in the case of gross negligence on the employees part (e.g. being drunk on the job), the employer would have scope to take a civil suit against their own employee.

In terms of ultimate liability, if an employee causes damage while on a job (such as reversing a car into another one), then it goes without saying that the employer foots this bill to the customer, as the customer has a contract with the employer, not the employee.

The employer then has to go through the process of reclaiming these costs from their employee, if they can.

cormie

Thanks a lot Seamus, that's some great info!

So on all that, is it the same if for example, it's an employee (full time or part time) as it would be for somebody contracted for a few hours/days work who would be invoicing the business owner (not employer in this case, but the person giving them the work - sorry, I'm not too up on the right terms for everything ), so long as it's in the contract they agreed to before commencing the work?

Also, do things change in the case of higher cost of damage? Someone breaking a few plates as opposed to somebody crashing the car? At what stage does it go to the business owners insurance, or can this all be defined in contract that FULL responsibility and repayment can come from the worker or maybe at a certain stage (say over the insurance excess amount) that the business owner will use their insurance? Imagine a cleaner was working in a gallery and if they knocked over a piece of art worth 200K, well they might consider this too much of a risk to take the job in the first place as it would take them 10 years to cover that on 20K a year, or by a "fair, long term plan" could have their salary reduced by 5K each year for the next 40 years to cover it.

seamus

cormie wrote: »

So on all that, is it the same if for example, it's an employee (full time or part time) as it would be for somebody contracted for a few hours/days work who would be invoicing the business owner (not employer in this case, but the person giving them the work - sorry, I'm not too up on the right terms for everything ), so long as it's in the contract they agreed to before commencing the work?

Yes, it would be pretty much the same, though in the case of a subcontractor (think of a plumber working on a building site), it would be assumed that they have liability for their damage, it wouldn't have to be specified in the contract. However, any damage would have to be actioned in a civil suit, there would be no provision to deduct money from what you owe them unless you had agreed that with them beforehand.

If you are subcontracting someone where costly damage is a possibility, then you would be advised to insist that they take out their own insurance.

As the primary contractor, you will always be liable to the customer for damage caused by your subcontractors. This is why them having insurance is crucial for you - so you're not out of pocket trying to chase it up from your subcontractor.

Also, do things change in the case of higher cost of damage?
....
At what stage does it go to the business owners insurance

Impossible to put a definite line on it, but even where the contract puts full liability on the employee, the below line from the legislation comes into play:

the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee)

"All the circumstances" also refers to the circumstances surrounding the specific incident, the total amount of the damage, the intention of the employee, etc etc.

That is, if a cleaner managed to damage a €200k masterpiece, questions have to be asked surrounding the security of the artwork (was it fixed appropriately to the wall), training provided to cleaning staff, how reasonably forseeable was this incident (was it balanced precariously on a pedestal), and so on.
It would be implied that where something is very expensive, the employer would take all appropriate measures to ensure the security of the item. So it would therefore be implied that unless the cleaner maliciously damaged the artwork, or was grossly negligent (like using a power washer to clean the picture frames), then the employees liability in the incident would not constitute the entirety of the cost.

Here actually is a perfect example of what you're talking about.
Under Irish legislation, I don't believe the cleaner would have any liability here as the employer would have had a duty to train cleaning staff when a new installation was created.

cormie

Seamus, thanks again, really informative and helpful as usual! Had seen that article before on the janitor That's a pretty comprehensive 2 posts you made there which I think just about covers everything!