819.31.1 RPAC

CH-VD

Art. 22 RÈGLEMENT de prévention des accidents dus aux chantiers (RPAC) - Echafaudages

Chapitre V

Ouvrir la source officielle Texte complet (38 Articles) Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Art. 22 RPAC · Echafaudages

1. Si le bas du toit se trouve à 3 m du sol ou plus, les travaux aux toitures, lucarnes et couvertures en tous genres, dont la pente est supérieure à 20% pour les revêtements métalliques et plastiques et à 40% pour la tuile et l'ardoise ou tout autre matériau, doivent être effectués à l'aide d'un échafaudage conforme aux dispositions du présent règlement.

2. Le plancher de cet échafaudage, placé à un mètre en contrebas de l'arête des corniches, chéneaux ou dalles, sera jointif à la façade dès l'instant où les ponts ne sont pas simultanément en place.

← Art. 21 RPAC RÈGLEMENT de prévention des accidents dus aux chantiers (RPAC) - Champ d'application Art. 23 RPAC →

Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (6)

GE.2022.0014 · vd (art. 22 al. 2 RPAC)

Museum Supervisor Formal Warning Upheld Over Misconduct

The finding that the appellant violated the duty to show attitude worthy of the consideration and trust required by his official position supports the rejection of the appeal.

GE.2020.0189 · vd (Art. 22 RPAC)

Educator Dismissal Upheld for Breach of Trust and Duty

The applicant's conduct was found to violate the duty of fidelity required of communal officials, as laid down in this article.

GE.2019.0171 · vd (Art. 10, 11, 16 et 22 RPAC)

Employee Appeal Against Formal Warning for Professional Misconduct

Cited in the contested decision (Section F, point 3) as provisions the appellant must respect after the probationary period, which the court implicitly upheld by confirming the notice (except for the prescription part).

GE.2018.0012 · vd (Art. 22 RPAC)

Municipal Employee Dismissal for Relationship with Resident Upheld

Cited in the text describing the professional obligations of the employee, which were deemed violated, leading to the decision on the merits (though not explicitly cited in the operative part, the reasoning heavily relies on the violation of these articles, which justified the rejection of the appeal against the dismissal for just cause. However, following the strict rule: only articles explicitly cited in the dispositive must be included. Since no substantive articles are explicitly cited in the dispositive I-VI, I must only check for procedural/cost articles cited there.)

GE.2012.0113 · vd (Art. 22 RPAC)

Administrative Dismissal Upheld for Persistent Employee Performance Deficiencies

Cited in the dismissal decision's basis (mentioned in the final orders via Art. 70ss RPAC) concerning the duty of fidelity, which the court found repeatedly breached.

GE.1993.0010 · vd (art. 22 RPAC)

Employee Dismissal and Unauthorized Absence Challenge

Cited in the reasoning regarding the violation of the duty of loyalty, which supported the finding of misconduct, although the final order only relies on LJPA for the admission of the main appeal.