On 30 September 2025, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic issued a decision that significantly affects the scope of employers’ responsibility for the safety of individuals who are not their direct employees – typically self-employed persons (sole traders) or subcontractor workers – but who are present at the workplace.
In the case at hand, the Court examined an incident involving an external worker (a self-employed person) who had been hired through another company as a subcontractor to perform cleaning work at a transformer substation. During this work, he suffered a serious electric shock injury after entering, without supervision, a part of the facility with an electricity supply and also using unsuitable equipment.
Although he had been provided with a protective helmet against falls, the employer did not give him any warning about potential electrical hazards or the risks associated with the area. The employer attempted to shift responsibility to the contractor or to the external worker himself, arguing that he was not its employee.
However, the Court confirmed the interpretation of the Labour Code, according to which the employer’s obligation to ensure occupational safety and health protection (OSH) applies to all natural persons who are present at the workplace with the employer’s knowledge.
Employers must therefore ensure that external workers also undergo appropriate training on risks, safety rules, and orientation within the premises where they will work. This obligation cannot be delegated to a contractor. Employers are also required to exercise supervision and control over the activities of external workers, especially when they operate in hazardous areas (technical rooms, transformer stations, warehouses, dangerous zones, etc.).
Internal operating rules, safety policies, and access regulations for high-risk areas must be set up in such a way that external workers are informed of potential workplace hazards and, where necessary, may enter such areas only with supervision or be prohibited from entering them altogether.
The Supreme Court’s judgment thus represents a fundamental shift in the approach to responsibility for workplace safety: it is not decisive whether a worker is an employee or an external contractor; if a person is present on the employer’s premises with the employer’s knowledge, the company must guarantee that person’s safety.
This decision therefore imposes significant obligations on businesses that use external workers, making it essential for them to reassess their internal occupational health and safety processes and the relevant contractual arrangements going forward.
