HARD QUESTIONS - H&S

This is one of those hard questions where the only honest answer is - it depends.

Employers are often unsure where they stand when tools, plant or workshop space are used after hours for private jobs, favours or the odd ‘homer’. In many trades, that kind of flexibility is almost part of the culture. Access to gear, workshop space or the occasional helping hand can be seen as a privilege of the job and in the right circumstances it can be a reasonable one. We would not discourage employers from honouring that goodwill and tradition.

But it needs to be recognised for what it is - an extension of trust. And where trust is extended, professional standards still matter. Being off the clock does not automatically make risk disappear.

A PCBU’s responsibility can sit across a few different areas - the site, the gear, the person and the activity. That is why no two situations are the same.

Take a builder who borrows a company nail gun over the weekend to work on his own place and puts a nail through his hand. If he is on his own property, doing his own project, in his own time, the business is unlikely to be responsible simply because the tool belonged to the company. The employer does not control the site, the task or the work being carried out.

But if that nail gun had a known fault, had missed inspection or had been allowed to remain in unsafe condition, the picture changes. At that point, the question is no longer just about a private weekend job. It is about whether unsafe equipment was put into circulation by the business.

The same applies to larger gear. If a digger is loaned to someone who is plainly not competent to operate it and they hurt themselves, it becomes much harder to argue the business had no role at all. The decision to hand over the equipment may itself be where the risk was created.

Or take a workshop example. If apprentices are allowed to use the workshop over the weekend to work on their own cars, and one drops a vehicle off a hoist and breaks his arm, the employer is very much back in the frame. It is the employer’s site, the employer’s plant and an activity the employer has permitted. “After hours” does not make those responsibilities disappear.

That is really the point - these cases turn on control. Who controlled the environment? Who controlled the equipment? Who approved the activity? Who was in the best position to manage the risk?

This does not mean the answer is always no when staff ask to borrow tools or use workplace facilities. It does mean the answer should be considered. If an employer is prepared to extend that trust, everyone involved needs to understand that proper H&S standards do not stop at 5 pm on Friday. Equipment still needs to be fit for purpose. People still need to be competent. Activities still need to be sensible. Favours do not cancel risk.

The practical takeaway is simple. Before agreeing to after-hours use of company gear or premises, think carefully about your exposure. What is being used, by whom, where, and for what purpose? If something goes wrong, would you be comfortable explaining why you allowed it?

These arrangements can absolutely be managed well. But they should be approached as a matter of judgment, trust and risk - not as an informal free-for-all.

So, what are your responsibilities if one of the boys has an accident using company equipment on the weekend?

It depends on the gear, the site, the person and the activity. The smartest approach is to make thoughtful business decisions before the favour is granted, not after someone gets hurt.