The use of external contractors and their subcontractors – external service providers – is now a common feature of how commercial companies operate. Cleaning, technical servicing, IT services, maintenance and other specialist activities are thus often carried out by individuals who are not employees of the company on whose premises these external service providers carry out their work. However, from the perspective of health and safety at work (hereinafter referred to as “HSE”), entrusting a particular activity to an external contractor does not mean that the company is simultaneously relieved of its obligations regarding the safety of persons present on its premises.
It was precisely the scope of an employer’s obligations towards such external contractors that the Supreme Court addressed in its judgment of 30 September 2025, File No. 21 Cdo 1325/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Judgment”), in which it concluded that the employer’s obligation to ensure HSE pursuant to the provisions of Section 101(5) of Act No. 262/2006 Coll., the Labour Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Labour Code”), may also extend to a self-employed person who carries out work at the employer’s workplace as part of a subcontracting chain. The decisive factor here is not the existence of a direct contractual relationship between the employer and the external contractor, but, in particular, whether the external contractor is present at the employer’s workplace with the employer’s knowledge.
What, then, are employers’ obligations in relation to external contractors, and how should the HSE system be organised in practice?
Facts of the case
In the present case, the defendant employer entered into a contract with an external contractor to provide cleaning services. The contractor subsequently subcontracted the part of the work involving window cleaning to a subcontractor (the claimant in this dispute), who carried out this cleaning work in the defendant’s premises as a self-employed person.
The claimant, together with other workers, arrived at the defendant’s premises, where he received instructions from a defendant’s employee responsible for supervising the cleaning to wash the windows in all rooms whose doors would be open. One of these was a room marked ‘22kV’, which remained unlocked and was not adequately secured. Whilst carrying out cleaning work there, the claimant suffered a serious electric shock.
The defendant argued, amongst other things, that the claimant was neither his employee nor an approved subcontractor, and that an external cleaning company was responsible for ensuring compliance with HSE regulations during cleaning work in accordance with the contract. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this view.
Obligations in the field of HSE are not limited solely to the employer’s own employees
The fundamental basis for the legal framework governing HSE in the Labour Code is the provision of Section 101(1), under which an employer is obliged to ensure the HSE of its employees at work, taking into account the risks of potential danger to their lives and health. However, the Labour Code extends the scope of protected persons. Under Section 101(5) of the Labour Code, the employer’s duty to ensure HSE applies to all natural persons who, with the employer’s knowledge, are present on the employer’s premises.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court interpreted this principle broadly. Persons other than the employer’s own employees who are present at the employer’s workplace with the employer’s knowledge must also be regarded as protected persons, irrespective of the purpose of their presence or the existence of a contractual or other legal relationship with the employer. Such a person may therefore be either an employee of another employer or a self-employed person carrying out work under an agreement with a subcontractor of the employer’s contractual supplier.
The interpretation of the term “workplace” itself is also crucial. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that, for the duration of the external works, the premises became exclusively the workplace of the external contractor. In its Judgment, the Supreme Court defined the employer’s workplace within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the Labour Code as “all premises in which the employer carries out activities through its employees (including places and premises related to such activities), over which it exercises control and in which individuals other than its employees, who are present there with its knowledge, are exposed to risks that may endanger life and health”. A single location may therefore simultaneously serve as a workplace for several employers. In the present case, it was therefore crucial that the claimant carried out work on premises used for the defendant’s business, which were exclusively under the defendant’s control; furthermore, the defendant, through its employee, not only knowingly permitted the claimant’s presence and the performance of his work at the workplace, but also effectively directed his activities there.
Interpretation of the term “external worker”
For the practical implementation of HSE, however, it is necessary to distinguish who specifically is carrying out the external work. The Labour Code does not recognise the term “external worker” as a separate legal category, and it may encompass persons with different legal statuses. From the perspective of Section 101(5) of the Labour Code, this may, in principle, refer to any natural person other than the employer’s own employees who, with the employer’s knowledge, is present at the workplace.
It is not decisive for what purpose they are present at the workplace, nor whether they are bound to the employer by a direct contractual or other legal relationship. This category may therefore also include, for example, a self-employed person who carries out work at the workplace as a subcontractor to the employer’s contractual supplier.
A typical example is the staff of an external supplier. If staff from two or more employers are performing tasks at a single workplace, the provisions of Section 101(3) and (4) of the Labour Code apply. The employers concerned are obliged to inform one another in writing of the risks and measures taken in relation to the performance of work and the workplace, and to cooperate in ensuring HSE for all employees at the workplace in question. On the basis of a written agreement, they may also appoint one of the employers to coordinate the measures being implemented. However, each employer remains responsible for ensuring that their activities and the work of their employees are organised, co-ordinated and carried out in such a way that the employees of other employers are also protected.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section 103(1)(g) of the Labour Code, to ensure that, before commencing work, these employees of another employer receive suitable and adequate information and instructions on HSE, as well as information on the measures adopted, particularly in the event of a fire, the provision of first aid or evacuation. Appropriate records must also be kept of the information and instructions provided.
The situation is different for self-employed persons, who do not have an employer. However, even they are not outside the HSE system. Under Section 12 of Act No. 309/2006 Coll., on ensuring further conditions for HSE, as amended, self-employed persons are subject, amongst other things, to the provisions of Section 101(1), (2) and (5) and Section 102 of the Labour Code, taking into account the conditions and scope of the work carried out. Self-employed persons therefore bear certain obligations in the field of HSE themselves; however, the existence of these obligations does not preclude a concurrent obligation on the part of the employer at whose workplace they are present with the employer’s knowledge.
Can responsibility for HSE be transferred to an external contractor by contract?
One of the most significant practical conclusions of the Judgment is that an employer cannot discharge its statutory obligations under Section 101(5) of the Labour Code simply by contractually transferring responsibility for HSE to an external contractor. The Supreme Court expressly stated that one employer’s workplace may simultaneously be the workplace of another employer, and the contractual relationship between these entities does not relieve either of them of their own statutory obligations, even if the contract governs their mutual rights and obligations in the field of HSE.
However, this does not mean that contractual provisions on HSE are irrelevant. On the contrary, it should constitute one of the fundamental elements of the external contractor management system. The contract may allocate specific organisational tasks, regulate the obligation to provide information on risks, lay down rules for the involvement of subcontractors, require appropriate professional or medical fitness of personnel, or regulate the contractor’s obligation to comply with the operator’s internal rules. However, such provisions primarily apply within the contractual relationship between the parties and cannot relieve the employer of the statutory obligations imposed on them by legislation.
HSE System Settings for Contractors
In our view, the judgement confirms that, when using external contractors, HSE cannot be based solely on a contractual provision stating that “the contractor is responsible for the HSE of its workers”. The employer should have a system in place that is appropriate to the nature of its operations, the type of external work carried out and the risks to which external personnel may be exposed.
The following areas in particular can be considered key:
- Identification of external personnel and the scope of their activities
An employer should be aware of which external persons enter their workplace, for whom they may be carrying out work, and the scope of that work. Particular attention should be paid to subcontracting chains. The judgement shows that the fact that a particular self-employed person was neither a direct contractor nor an employee of a direct contractor does not, in itself, exempt the workplace operator from its obligations.
- Risk assessment and mutual transfer of risks
In the case of employees working for multiple employers at a single workplace, information regarding risks and the measures taken must be shared in writing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 101(3) of the Labour Code. This obligation should not be understood merely as a formal, one-off exchange of information concerning general risks, but as an ongoing process of sharing information that reflects the actual conditions at the workplace.
- Familiarisation with the specific conditions at the workplace
The scope of information provided to external persons should correspond to the actual risks associated with their work. In the case of an employee of an external contractor, this primarily involves appropriate and proportionate information and instructions within the meaning of Section 103(1)(g) of the Labour Code. In practice, this may include, for example, the definition of areas they are permitted to enter, specific operational risks, rules governing movement within the workplace, or procedures to be followed in the event of any emergency.
- Technical and organisational safeguards for high-risk areas
Simply instructing a contractor may not be sufficient. Under Section 102 of the Labour Code, the employer is obliged to identify and assess risks and to take measures to eliminate or minimise them. The case currently under discussion is illustrative in this regard – the problem was not only the lack of information provided to the claimant (the external contractor), but also the fact that the high-risk room remained physically accessible and was not adequately secured.
- Clear identification of responsible persons, documentation and monitoring
Where employees from several companies or several levels of contractors come together at a single workplace, it should be clear in advance who is responsible in practice for the individual aspects of the HSE system and who the point of contact is on the part of the workplace operator. At the same time, the employer should be able to demonstrate what measures they have taken, what information they have provided to individual persons, and to update the system on an ongoing basis in light of changes to operations and the emergence of new risks. External contractors should be made aware of the current risks and safety rules, to the extent relevant to their activities and the conditions at the workplace in question, before commencing work.
A specific practical issue concerns premises to which a large number of external visitors have daily access, albeit for a limited period. A typical example would be the logistics and distribution centres of retail chains, which are visited every day by drivers from various transport companies for the purpose of delivering or collecting goods. For example, a driver may be an employee of an external carrier or a self-employed person, and may be present on the operator’s premises with the operator’s knowledge.
The conclusions of the Judgment therefore cannot apparently be interpreted to mean that the obligations of the operator – for example, of a distribution centre – do not apply at all to such short-term visits. At the same time, however, it cannot be inferred from the Judgment that every driver must undergo the same comprehensive HSE training before entering the premises as those who carry out work at the site on a daily basis.
The scope of the measures taken should correspond, in particular, to the nature of the external contractor’s activities, the duration of their stay at the workplace and the risks to which they may be exposed. In the case of an employee of an external transport provider, what is required is the provision of suitable and proportionate information and instructions, not automatically familiarisation with all the operator’s internal regulations.
It is precisely in this respect that the Judgement can be understood as a warning against a purely formal approach to HSE. In the case in question, the problem lay not only in the inadequate briefing of the external contractor, but also in the fact that the high-risk switchyard remained physically accessible and that supervision of the external workers’ activities was not properly ensured. The person responsible for this supervision remained in one place for the duration of the cleaning work, rather than actually carrying out the necessary supervision of the work being carried out. In practice, therefore, it will not only be decisive whether the employer has a signed entry form at their disposal, but also whether the measures taken actually correspond to the existing risks and the operations of the workplace in question.
Statutory employer’s liability insurance
In this context, a practical question also arises: what happens if a self-employed person suffers an injury at the workplace, and whether the resulting damage can be covered by the statutory employer’s liability insurance for work-related accidents and occupational diseases[1].
However, the fact that the judgement extends the protection and obligations of the employer, as the operator of the workplace in question, to self-employed persons in accordance with Section 101(5) of the Labour Code does not make the external contractor an employee of the workplace operator. According to Section 271k of the Labour Code, an accident at work is defined as damage to an employee’s health or death occurring whilst performing work duties or in direct connection therewith.
In the case of self-employed persons, therefore, the statutory insurance of the workplace operator does not, in principle, apply. This conclusion is not altered by the fact that, whilst the external contractor formally acts as a self-employed person, they would in fact be performing dependent work for an external contractor (e.g. also under the so-called “Švarcsystem”). The Supreme Court has previously held that liability for an accident at work arising within the context of a so-called de facto employment relationship is not covered by statutory accident insurance unless a valid basic employment relationship exists[2].
This does not, of course, mean that the workplace operator cannot be held liable for harm suffered by a self-employed person.
As is also evident from the Judgment, a breach of the operator’s obligations in the field of HSE may give rise to a duty to compensate for harm under civil law. However, such a claim will not be covered by statutory employer’s liability insurance for damage resulting from an accident at work or an occupational disease. In practice, therefore, we recommend checking the scope of the operator’s commercial liability insurance, in particular whether and under what conditions the insurance cover also extends to personal injury caused to external contractors whilst they are carrying out their activities at the operator’s workplace.
In conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as an important reminder that outsourcing a particular activity does not automatically entail the transfer of HSE obligations to another entity. When establishing safety measures for its workplace, an employer must take into account not only its own employees but also any other individuals who are present on the premises with the employer’s knowledge.
At the same time, however, it is not possible to establish a single, universal regime for all external contractors. The scope of individual measures will depend primarily on the relevant legal relationship, the nature of the activities, the specific risks at the workplace and the extent to which the external contractor moves about the workplace.
Employers should therefore pay attention not only to the contractual division of responsibilities with external contractors, but above all to how the system for fulfilling HSE obligations is set up – who is permitted to enter the workplace, what information they receive, who coordinates their activities, and how existing risks are mitigated from both a technical and organisational perspective. It is precisely the combination of appropriate contractual arrangements, the clear handover of information, effective coordination and efficient preventive measures that can significantly reduce the risk that a formally established HSE system will be deemed inadequate by a court in the event of a dispute following an accident involving a contractor.
If this issue concerns you, we recommend checking whether your company’s current HSE arrangements comply with the above conclusions and the specific conditions of your operations. At PEYTON legal, we would be happy to help you assess the scope of your obligations towards individual groups of external contractors and set up a practical system for fulfilling them – from rules on access and risk awareness, through establishing cooperation with external suppliers, to preparing internal documentation, designating responsible persons, and defining rules for coordination and supervision.
[1] see Section 365(1) of Act No. 262/2006 Coll., the Labour Code, as amended; in conjunction with Section 205d of Act No. 65/1965 Coll., the Labour Code, as amended, Decree No. 125/1993 Coll., laying down the conditions and rates of statutory insurance against the employer’s liability for damage resulting from an accident at work or an occupational disease, as amended, and Act No. 182/2014 Coll., as amended
[2] see, for example, the judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 November 2019, File No. 21 Cdo 2124/2018
Mgr. Jakub Málek, managing partner – malek@plegal.cz
Mgr. Marek Pavlovský, attorney – pavlovsky@plegal.cz
Anna Němcová, legal assistant – nemcova@plegal.cz
24. 9. 2026