By Eamonn Ryan
For many HVAC leaders, the line between routine work and construction‑level projects can feel blurry. Yet that line is exactly where the legal framework changes – from the OSH Act alone to the combination of OSH Act plus Construction Regulations. In her SAIRAC workshop, health and safety officer Tegan Beer uses two clear scenarios to make this distinction practical. This is part four of a ten-part series.
Co-ordination of subcontractors – such as electricians, riggers and duct installers – becomes a central responsibility.
DC Studio | Magnific.com
The first scenario is routine servicing. A technician goes to a rooftop to perform quarterly maintenance on air‑conditioning units: cleaning filters, checking refrigerant levels, replacing worn parts.
In this case, only the OSH Act applies. Beer explains that the employer’s duties are still serious and specific:
- Provide safe access to the roof
- Ensure appropriate PPE such as gloves and masks
- Offer proper training and supervision
The technician, in turn, must follow procedures, use PPE, and report any hazards. There is no scaffolding, no structural alterations, and no high‑risk construction activities, so the Construction Regulations are not triggered.
The second scenario is a chiller installation. A team is tasked with installing a large chiller in a commercial building. The project requires scaffolding, cranes to lift heavy equipment, cutting openings in walls, and co-ordinating several contractors.
Here, both the OSH Act and the Construction Regulations apply. “The OSH Act remains in force, but the construction regulations add extra obligations: appointing a construction manager, safety officer, and developing a site‑specific safety plan, conducting risk assessments for scaffolding and lifting, and managing the subcontractors,” says Beer.
In this scenario, the principal contractor must make formal legal appointments, create a site‑specific safety plan before work begins, and conduct detailed risk assessments for each high‑risk task. Co-ordination of subcontractors – such as electricians, riggers and duct installers – becomes a central responsibility.
Beer uses these two examples to drive home a key lesson: the trigger is the nature of the work, not who is doing it. The same HVAC company can be doing routine servicing (OSH Act only) on one site and construction‑level work (OSH + Construction Regulations) on another.
She warns that misreading this distinction can have serious consequences: “Misinterpreting this distinction can expose companies to legal liability, fines, and reputational damage. Understanding it ensures compliance, protects workers, and strengthens leadership credibility in the HVAC industry,” Beer notes.
For CEOs and project managers, the practical approach is to ask a simple set of questions at the start of every job:
- Are we altering structures, cutting openings or doing demolition?
- Will we use cranes, scaffolding or other high‑risk methods?
- Are multiple contractors going to be coordinated on a live construction environment?
If the answer is yes, you are likely in Construction Regulations territory and must plan accordingly.
By using these two contrasting HVAC scenarios, Beer brings legal theory down to the level of real projects. Leaders who apply this thinking consistently can avoid costly mistakes and build a safety culture that is aligned with the true risk profile of their work.
