Work-from-home warning as council employee wins ‘wild’ worker’s compensation case: ‘Call to arms’
The “wild” case of a council employee who won a claim for worker’s compensation after tripping over a pet fence while working from home (WFH) has sparked heated debate among Aussie workers. More Aussie businesses have been forcing staff back into the office and there are fears this could be “another nail in the coffin for WFH”.
The Tribunal ruled her injuries arose out of her employment with the fall happening during an “authorised coffee break at her place of employment”.
She was deemed eligible for compensation, which is yet to be determined.
Superior People Recruitment director Graham Wynn told Yahoo Finance he was “absolutely stunned” by the decision and said it opened up a “huge can of worms” for employers and employees.
He said some might not be willing to take on the potential risk of being hit with similar worker’s compensation claims and could move to get staff back into the office.
“I think this will be a real call to arms now for employers to say, ‘Whoa, if we’re going to be liable for how your entire house is set up then no we’re not going to allow you to work from home’,” he said.
“If you employ 300 people and they all work from home, even on a hybrid arrangement, does the employer have to go and visit and check every single one of those 300 houses? And how often does he have to do that to make sure you haven’t made modifications?
“This is opening up a nightmare I think and I think there are big implications for employers to say ‘No we can’t take this risk’.”
Aussie workers have also expressed concerns over the implications of the “wild” decision, with one writing: “This is how WFH dies”.
“100 per cent guaranteed companies will start forcing staff back into the office due to ‘liability risk’,” another mused.
“Welp, another nail in the coffin for WFH. How many employers want to start having to pay higher work cover insurance because their employees are injuring themselves in their own homes where the employer has no practical oversight,” a third added.
“Health and safety risks are something that employers do need to be properly concerned about and in an office situation it is much easier to control those things,” the employment lawyer said.
“I’m not saying by itself it’s going to necessarily change things, but I think it’s one of a number of things that employers are thinking about in deciding whether the working from home arrangements are enduring for them.”
Aussie gambling company Tabcorp also joined the tide, while the NSW government announced its 450,000 public sector staff would be required back in the office full-time in August.
Research from Robert Half found about two in five Aussie employees were now expected to head into the office five days a week. This was double the number recorded last year.
Employers warned they can be liable
McDonald said the decision served as a reminder that normal health and safety duties applied when workers were working from home.
He said employers could be liable in workers compensation, and from a health and safety point of view, if an employee hurt themselves during the course of their employment at home.
“From a workers comp point of view, they take a pretty broad view of what ‘in the course of employment’ is,” he said.
“What it means is employers can’t just have people working from home and not worry about whether that workplace is safe.
“They’ve got to make sure that the normal risk management things that they might consider if the person was in the office or their workplace would still apply.”
McDonald noted employers usually asked for photographs of where their employees were going to be working from home to check whether the space was safe.
What did the Tribunal say?
In the decision handed down last week, South Australian Employment Tribunal auxiliary deputy president and magistrate Jodie Carrel found the woman fell during an “authorised coffee break at her place of employment”, which is something the employee said she “would have done had she been working in the office around the same time”.
Carrel said the “physical workplace hazard, being the pet fence” was “a significant contributing cause of her injuries”.
Carrel rejected the argument that the fact the fence was put up without the council’s director or knowledge meant her injury was not caused by employment, saying this adopted a “too narrow view”.
“This is particularly so, given the extent of [the employee’s] autonomy in managing her own health and safety while working from home,” she said.