The whole portfolio from one screen
The Act names the sources the occupational health and safety service may be bought in from: joint health and safety units and ÇASMERs. This page is written for that side; the difficulty is not one client but running the same method across fifteen.
This page is written for authorised organisations serving more than one workplace. An OHS professional is either assigned from among the employer's own employees or works through such an organisation; the reader here is the organisation. Authorisation, demerit points and the submission side are covered on this page.
Who is authorised for what
The Act writes the external source as a list: where no employee has the required qualifications, the employer may discharge the duty by obtaining all or part of the service from joint health and safety units or from ÇASMERs. That is the list; those two are also the primary readers of this page.
A joint health and safety unit is a unit established to provide occupational health and safety services to workplaces and authorised by the Ministry; it is set up by public institutions, organised industrial zones or companies operating under the Turkish Commercial Code. A ÇASMER is a unit attached to the Ministry of Health and authorised for the same purpose. A workplace health and safety unit is different from both: it is not a bought-in service but a unit established inside the workplace itself.
A training body is authorised by the Ministry as well, but its authorisation concerns the delivery of training: by the statutory definition, a training body is an institution authorised to deliver training under this Act and its secondary legislation. It does not appear in the list of sources the service may be bought from. The Ministry's power to examine, authorise, control and inspect covers both training bodies and joint health and safety units.
A consultancy is not part of that list. A firm providing management system or compliance consultancy does not deliver the occupational health and safety service itself; it works inside its client's system. The authorisation and demerit point rows on this page do not bind such a firm; nor does obtaining services from external experts or organisations remove the employer's responsibilities.
Where it gets stuck today
Separate templates and methods accumulate for each client. When the expert changes, the method changes too; the organisation's own standard disappears inside individual files.
Contracts, assignments and time tracking become a job of their own. Which client's document expires when is usually answered from a spreadsheet.
In an audit the requested record is looked for in the organisation's own archive rather than at the workplace; if it is missing, the consequence is written against both sides.
How it works in Optifora
Clients are kept apart while the method stays common. One client's data does not appear on another client's screen.
- Multi-client workspaceEach client sits in its own area; the organisation sees the entire portfolio from one list.
- One method, repeated templateThe risk assessment method and checklists are defined at organisation level; they are not rebuilt for every client.
- Deadline and assignment trackingTraining, examination and inspection dates are gathered per client; an approaching date shows up in the list.
- Submission to the MinistryUnder what conditions the submission can be made, and what it costs, is written with measurement.
- Reports and signatureOutput that goes to the client can be signed and verified afterwards; who produced it and when stays on record.
- Operating guidesStep-by-step guides on authorisation, the responsible manager, staffing and audits are published.
The table below shows two things: the sources the service may be bought in from, and this side's own consequences — demerit points, suspension and cancellation of the authorisation. The rows belong to the Turkish regime only; other countries' regimes are not mapped onto it.
Legal basis
The table shows the obligations of the legislation region you pick in the top bar; it refreshes without reloading the page when the region changes.
Türkiye — the service provider's own consequences
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the page covers it |
|---|---|---|
| The employer assigns an occupational physician from among the employees | Law no. 6331, art. 6(1)(a) — the employer shall assign, from among its employees, a safety expert, an occupational physician and, in very hazardous workplaces with ten or more employees, other health personnel; where no personnel with the required qualifications is available, all or part of the service may be obtained from joint health and safety units or from ÇASMERs. | The first paragraph of "Who is authorised for what": the sources the service may be bought in from. |
| Buying the service in does not remove the employer's responsibility | Law no. 6331, art. 4(2) — obtaining services from external experts or organisations does not remove the employer's responsibilities; art. 4(3) — the duties of employees do not affect the responsibilities of the employer. | The fourth paragraph of "Who is authorised for what": buying the service in does not remove the employer's responsibility. |
| Employer: to check that the personnel of the body serving them use integrator software | External Circular 2018-1, §6(a) | The submission row. |
| Service provider: training records not kept, or no copy held | OHS Services Regulation art. 21/1 → Annex 7 | The deadline and assignment tracking row; this is what a missing training record costs. |
| Service provider: information and documents requested in inspections not provided | OHS Services Regulation art. 21/1 → Annex 7 | The multi-client workspace row: requested information and documents come from one place. |
| Service provider: suspension of the authorisation certificate | OHS Services Regulation art. 22/1-2 | The third paragraph of "Where it gets stuck today". |
| Service provider: revocation of the certificate and its publication | OHS Services Regulation art. 22/4-6 | The cancellation-of-authorisation guide in the guides section. |
| OHS professional: to report the data-set records to the Ministry through integrator software | External Circular 2018-1, §4(a) | The submission row: the side that enters the record into integrator software. |
The demerit point regime is specific to the Act 6331 system; another country's inspection notice or penalty item cannot be treated as its equivalent.
EU — calling in external services and the provider's position
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the page covers it |
|---|---|---|
| The employer shall designate one or more workers to carry out activities related to the protection and prevention of occupational risks; where such measures cannot be organised for lack of competent personnel, the employer shall enlist competent external services or persons. | Directive 89/391/EEC, art. 7(1) and 7(3) | The first paragraph of "Who is authorised for what": the case where the service is bought in. |
| The designated workers and the external services or persons consulted must be sufficient in number, taking account of the size of the undertaking and the hazards to which the workers are exposed; Member States may determine that sufficient number. | Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Art. 7(5) and Art. 7(8) | The multi-client workspace row: the provider is given the workplace's information in full. |
| Where an employer enlists competent external services or persons, this shall not discharge him from his responsibilities in this area. | Directive 89/391/EEC, art. 5(2) | The third paragraph of "Where it gets stuck today": the consequence lands on both sides. |
| Where several undertakings share a work place, the employers shall cooperate in implementing the safety, health and occupational hygiene provisions, coordinate their actions and inform one another and their workers' representatives of these risks. | Directive 89/391/EEC, art. 6(4) | The deadline and assignment tracking row: employers sharing one workplace. |
The framework directive has no authorisation regime comparable to the Turkish one; it regulates when external services are called in and what they must be given. No counterpart of the demerit point system has been sought.
United Kingdom — the provisions that bind the provider
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the page covers it |
|---|---|---|
| Where two or more employers share a workplace, each must cooperate with the others, coordinate the measures taken and inform them of the risks arising from the conduct of the undertaking. | Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg. 11(1) | The multi-client workspace row: cooperation on a shared workplace. |
| Every employer must make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures. | MHSWR 1999, reg. 5(1) | The "one method" row: planning, organisation, control and review run on one method. |
| Where an offence committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or similar officer, that person as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence. | Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, s. 37(1) | The third paragraph of "Where it gets stuck today": the consequence can reach the organisation's officers. |
This regime likewise has no authorisation or demerit point system comparable to the Turkish one; the rows are the provider's own written duties.
United States — providers and contractors
| Obligation | Legal basis | How the page covers it |
|---|---|---|
| The prime contractor is not relieved of overall responsibility even if it agrees terms with subcontractors | 29 CFR 1926.16(a) — the prime contractor and any subcontractors may make their own arrangements with respect to obligations which might be more appropriately treated on a jobsite basis; in no case shall the prime contractor be relieved of overall responsibility for compliance with the requirements of this part for all work to be performed under the contract. | The third paragraph of "Where it gets stuck today": a contract does not transfer responsibility. |
| Such programs shall provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials and equipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employer. | 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) | The deadline and assignment tracking row: regular inspection by a competent person. |
| Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees. | 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) | The reports and signature row: the general duty continues at the workplace served. |
The federal regime has no authorisation system comparable to the Turkish one; the rows concern multi-employer worksites and competent-person inspections. No counterpart of the demerit point system has been sought.
Where to start
What is usually set up first is the client list and the organisation's own method; client records are then moved onto it.
When the number of clients and users is stated, scope and tier can be discussed concretely.
Try it with your portfolio
Tell us how many clients you serve; the setup order is discussed accordingly.
Get in touch