Owner vs. operator of a machine

The owner of a machine may be a company, while the person operating a machine (push buttons, feed material, etc) may be an employee of said company.

But is the company also the operator of the machine, as it owns the machine with the intent of having it active/in operation/doing work?

I'm trying to avoid confusion between the person pushing the buttons and the more abstract 'commisioning' (does that make sense?).

Solution 1:

The company is also the operator. The way a company is regarded legally, it is an entity that acts through its employees. That's why you can say "Last year, Toyota sold a million cars." The company doesn't do any selling; it's the company's salespeople who did, but they did it on behalf of the company.

This only applies to acts that are within the scope of the employment. In your example, the company becomes the operator of the machine whenever the employee, as part of his job, pushes the buttons. However, if the employee eats a ham sandwich during his lunch break, the company does not become a "ham sandwich eater."

Solution 2:

No, the company is only the owner of the machine. Indirectly, the company may direct the operation of the machine, but only the person pushing the buttons is operating the machine.

(You could use those words, "directly" and "indirectly" if you wanted to highlight or emphasize one role or another.)