text: use of modern and powerful ICT technologies, or a combination of those two forms. Depending on the 
  work tasks, ICT infrastructures enable complete independence and separation from the premises of the 
  employer. In addition, they open opportunities for new forms of contracts and can go along with blurred 
  OSH responsibilities. 
  
  These forms of work often have as a major quality (feature) a**less clear employer–employee relation**. 
  The main structural element of the EU OSH legislation is the dual role of employers and employees in 
  OSH. The**employer has the overall responsibility**for OSH (Framework Directive Article 5:*‘… duty*
  *to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work …’*), and the**worker the**
  **obligation to contribute**(Framework Directive Article 13 …*‘to take care as far as possible of his own*
  *safety and health and that of other persons affected by his acts or omissions …’*). Where OSH legislation 
  has to be applied in less clear employer–employee relations, for example, in the case of self-employed, 
  the relevance and impact of ‘dyadic’ OSH regulations seem to fade. 
  
  Not only the EU is struggling with this development, but Australia also introduced the legal identity of a 
  **PCBU**: ‘Significantly, the primary duty of care will shift from the “employer” to the broader**“person**
  **conducting a business or undertaking”**(PCBU) and duties previously owed to “employees” will now 
  apply to all workers.’64 