Why is the investigation aimed at the “switchmen”?
As it became known to the Cheka-OGPU, on December 13, in the evening, another suspect was detained in the case of a fire in MEGA-Khimki - this is Alexander Makarov, the head of the section of TSK Delta-Stroy LLC, which carried out work in the OBI premises by order of the owner of MEGA " INGKA CENTERS. Makarov is another "switchman" in the case of a loud fire. He managed the work only during the day shift (the fire broke out during the night shift), was not responsible for fire safety at night, etc. Earlier, the investigation detained two other switchmen - welder Denis Sagitov and foreman Ilnur Shaikhutdinov. At the same time, the investigation deliberately bypasses the management of TSK Delta-Stroy, which, in violation of the contract, attracted a third-party organization, IP Karapetyan, for welding work. There are no questions to "INGKA CENTRS" - the customer of the work.
According to the Cheka-OGPU, the head of TSK Delta-Stroy tried to bribe the lawyer Makarov, in order for him to give the “necessary” testimony.
At the disposal of Rucriminal.info was the protocol of the confrontation between Makarov and the general director of TSK Delta-Stroy Volkov, from which you can learn a lot of interesting things. Mega required that welding be carried out at night, and that the fire extinguishing systems at the work site be turned off.
"Mega Khimki" put the contractor - "TSK Delta-Stroy" - tough conditions, namely, the implementation of noisy, hot and dusty work is possible only at night. Before the fire, work was carried out to strengthen the "farms". The scheme was like this. Foreman Shaikhutdinova I.R. submitted an application to Mega Khimki for which farm should be strengthened on a particular day. At the work site, the lines of automatic water fire extinguishing systems were turned off and the systems were drained.
The contract between MEGA and TSK clearly stated that the latter structure had no right to engage subcontractors. Despite this, a certain IP Karapetyan attracted TSK for welding.
Well, the highlight on the cake. In the job description of the foreman of works and in general provisions, it is indicated that he and his work “are guided by the current Law of Ukraine “On labor protection”.
Despite this, they are trying to make “switchmen” guilty of the fire: a welder; foreman and head of the site, who generally never worked at night.
that he and his work is guided by the current Law of Ukraine "On labor protection
and we acquaint readers with excerpts from it:
Reply of the suspect Makarov A.Yu.: To the question of the investigator to the witness Volkov E.F. “Explain what position Makarov A.Yu. when your organization performs work at the OBI hypermarket facility located in the Mega Khimki building? What are his responsibilities? What documents regulated this? I do not agree with the answer to this question regarding the employment contract. Since the copy of the employment contract previously provided for review was signed only on the last page by me. I reliably remember that I signed the employment contract on each sheet. A copy of the employment contract, provided to me for review, I saw for the first time.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator, “in the orders indicated by you there is clause 4, according to which, during the absence (illness, vacation, etc.), the responsible duty to ensure safe working conditions is assigned to the foreman Shaikhutdinov I.R. Explain, Shaikhutdinov I.R. becomes responsible in any cases of absence of A.Yu. Makarov. Or only in case of official absence, which is documented? I do not agree with the answer of Volkov E.F. Since when orders were issued to appoint me responsible at construction sites, initially point No. 4, there was no other person responsible for appointing me in my absence, which I informed Volkov E.F. before signing this order regarding the OBI object. Taking into account the harsh conditions of Mega Khimki, namely the implementation of noisy, hot and dusty work only at night, after which Volkov E.F. included this clause, which states that during the absence (illness, vacation, etc.) of the responsible person, the responsibility to ensure safe working conditions is assigned to the foreman Shaikhutdinov I.R. ". Previously, at other sites, only I was responsible. Therefore, Shaikhutdinov I.R. also signed the “new” orders regarding the responsible object “OBI”, he had not previously signed such orders. Which was a violation of labor laws.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator “If Makarov A.Yu. leaves the work site at night to go home, this is considered the official absence of the latter "I do not agree, since I cannot be at the workplace around the clock and cannot supervise night fireworks, since, in accordance with labor laws, I work 8 hours and I believe that in my absence at night at the facility, in accordance with clause 4 of the order, I. Shaikhutdinov is responsible for safety and fire safety. R.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator, that is. in cases where Makarov A.Yew. departs from the working facility home, and Shaikhutdinov I.R. remains at the facility, Makarov A.Yu. remains responsible for safety and fire safety?” I do not agree, since the director Volkov E.F. was aware that the schedule of work in the daytime Makarov A.Yu., at night Shaikhutdinov I.R., the director Volkov E.F., knowing that I had gone home to Kazan, did not assign the responsibility of the person responsible for safety and fire safety, thereby leaving the facility without a responsible person, since I physically could not exercise control over safety and fire safety. Each of his county home in Kazan was agreed upon by the director Volkov E.F.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator “during the work of OOO TSK Delta-Stroy at the facility of the OBI hypermarket”. located in the building "Mega Khimki" Makarov A.Yu. was on vacation, on sick leave, on a business trip? I do not agree, because during the period of work of TSK>> Delta-stroy LLC at the OBI hypermarket facility located in the Mega Khimki building from August 2021 to December 08, 2022, I have never been on vacation. I didn't apply for leave.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator “in November-December 2022, was there ever an official absence of Makarov A.Yu. at the working facility of the OBI hypermarket located in the Mega Khimki building, in connection with which Shaikhutdinov I.R. became responsible for safety and fire safety.>> I do not agree, because in November 2022 I went home to Kazan, also in agreement with the director Volkov Ef through air communications. During this period of time, the object, according to the indications. Volkova E.F., remained without a person responsible, including for fire safety, since no order was issued to appoint a person in charge at the time of my departure home to Kazan, and if it was, I was not acquainted with such an order. I left home in Kazan by verbal agreement. When leaving the working facility, I was guided by clause 4 of the relevant order, according to which Shaikhutdinov I.R. remained responsible for safety, including fire safety. Since I was physically absent from the site, I could not make briefings, I could not know the place of work, the scope of work, the intersection of the disconnection of automatic water fire extinguishing systems and the performance of water works that could be located in this area.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator “on the night of 08.12.2022 to 09.12.2022 Makarov A.Yu. was officially absent from the working facility of the <<OBI>> hypermarket located in the Mega Khimki building? I do not agree, because on the night of 12/08/2022 to 12/09/2022 I was officially absent from the working facility of the OBI hypermarket located in the Mega Khimki building, since my daily work schedule was agreed with the director Volkov E.F. and I acted according to the labor code. I could not control the drains of automatic water fire extinguishing systems, the strengthening of "farms". On this night. as in the previous one, the work of Shaikhutdinov I.R. and in accordance with paragraph 4 of the order, he was responsible for safety and fire safety. Shaikhutdin independently determined the places for strengthening the farms. I also want to clarify what exactly Shaikhutdinov I.R. was entrusted with carrying out hot work, according to the submitted applications signed by Mega Khimki.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the investigator’s question, that is, the night from 12/08/2022 to 12/09/2022, the person responsible at the working facility of the <<OBI>> hypermarket located in the Mega Khimki building for safety and fire safety, in accordance with orders, regarding this object, was Makarov A.O. work schedule, I started my duties at 08:00 and ended the working day at 18:00. And Shaikhutdinov I.R., according to the same schedule agreed with the director Volkov E.F., began his official duties on 09.12.2022 from 00 hours 30 minutes, therefore only Shaikhutdinov I.R. was to be responsible for safety and fire safety, in accordance with paragraph 4 of the above order.
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. to the question of the investigator who, on the night of 08.12.2022 to 09.12.2022, was responsible at the working facility of the OBI hypermarket located in the Mega Khimki building, Shaikhutdinov I.R. was also responsible for safety and fire safety.” I disagree. since on that night only Shaikhutdinov AND.R. from 000 "TSK" "Deltastroy" was responsible for safety and fire safety. according to clause 4 of the above order, hot work was assigned to him, he controlled the volume of welding work, location, prepared places for hot work and presented to the senior with exchange "Mega Khimki".
In part of the answer of the witness Volkov E.F. To answer the investigator’s question, you don’t have to be an expert to answer this question, because orders to appoint responsible persons at facilities are issued with your signature, or what’s wrong?” I do not agree, because I cannot perform any action or inaction. since I work during the daytime, according to the verbally agreed work schedule with the director E.F. Volkov. and in accordance with labor laws.
Question of the investigator to the witness E.F. Volkov: referring to the job description of Shaikhutdinov I.R. ... indicating that he was also responsible for fire safety at the OBI hypermarket facility. located in the Mega Khimki building, which particular item of his duties do you mean?
Reply of the witness E.F. I don't remember.
The question of the investigator to the witness Volkov E.F.: why in the job description of Shaikhutdinova I.R. in the general provisions it is indicated that he and his work is guided by the current Law of Ukraine “On labor protection?
Answer of the witness Volkov E.F.: I assume that this job description was taken from the information and telecommunications network <<Internet>> and is a technical error.
Question of the defender Mardanova A.R. to the suspected Makarov A.Yu.: did you sign an act of admission for the performance of work dated 19.08.2021 on behalf of the representative of the general contractor, according to which you undertake to comply with the requirements of labor protection, fire safety, which is assigned to to the responsible representative of the general contractor?
Question of the defender Morosnikova N.V. to witness E.F. Volkov: according to the construction contract for a major overhaul between 000 INGKA CENTRS RUS PROPERTY Ʌ and 000 TSK Delta-Stroy, which was signed by you on page 43 of the contract for the capital construction object Mega Khimki , according to part 6, clause 6.1 states that the subcontract provides for the conditions for the performance of work by the subcontractor personally (direct prohibition on subsequent subcontracting). On what basis in the contract between 000 <<TSK>> <<Destroy and the subcontractor SK MDS LLC with another subcontractor and which is contrary to the terms of the main contract? And on what basis did you allow the subcontractor IP Karapetyan to work?
Answer of the witness Volkov E.F.: I concluded an agreement with 000 SK MDS, how it was carried out, with the involvement of other persons or not, I did not know. Regarding the clause in the contract between 000 "TSK" "Deltastroy" and the subcontractor LLC "SK MDS" I can not explain anything,
Question of the defender Morosnikovo N.V. to the suspect A.Yu. Makarov: Have you read the terms of the contract between 000 INGKA CENTRS RUS PROPERTY A and OOO TSK Delta-Stroy? The answer of the suspect Makarov A.Yu.: no.
Question of the defender Morosnikova N.V. to the suspect Makarov A.Yu.: Who told you that the fire (welding) work will be carried out by employees of IP Karapetyan?
The answer of the suspect Makarov A.Yu.: I was informed about this by the director Volkov E.F. during oral dialogue.
Question of the defender Morosnikova N.V. to the suspect Makarov A.IO.: Was the welding work carried out by Karapetyan or his employees? The answer of the suspect Makarov A.IO .: they were carried out by employees of IP Karapetyan, Karapetyan personally did not carry out the work. I personally saw him once when he came to the site in the daytime.
Question of the defender Morosnikova N.V. to witness E.F. Volkov: when you found out that I, as a lawyer, was defending A.Yu.
This question was taken away by the investigator, since it does not relate to the subject of proof.
To be continued
Timofey Grishin
Source: www.rucriminal.info
