Compensation for employee’s injury in her own home

With modern employment, working from home and flexible working arrangements are becoming a necessity and sought after by many employees. Working from home has benefits to both employees and employers, however, it also carries additional risk.

The risks to employers are highlighted in the recent decision of Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91 (18 October 2024) in which the South Australian Employment Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered circumstances where the Applicant tripped over a pet fence in her home and injured her right knee and right shoulder. The employer was ultimately found liable for her workers compensation claim.

Background

Ms Vercoe was employed by the City of Charles Sturt (the Council). She carried out her duties mainly in the office, however worked from home occasionally. Ms Vercoe injured herself when she tripped and fell over a metal pet fence which she constructed for the purposes of keeping a colleagues’ puppy away from her pet rabbit. The Council rejected her claim for compensation, stating that the employment was not a significant contributing cause of the injuries.

During evidence, Ms Vercoe noted that she did not receive any direction from the Council as to the activities which were permitted or not permitted during breaks at home. She noted that the Council encouraged staff to take regular breaks. Further, Ms Vercoe sought approval to work from home the day before the incident and it was approved by a senior colleague.

The question before the Tribunal was whether Ms Vercoe’s injury arose from her employment, as required for compensation to be payable. Under the relevant legislation, this occurs where the injury arose from employment and employment was a significant contributing cause of the injury, where the employee’s employment includes attendance at the employee’s place of employment which means any place where the employee is required to carry out duties of their employment.

Decision

There was dispute that Ms Vercoe’s home was her place of employment on the day of the incident. Ms Vercoe advised the Council of her intention to work from home, and she was permitted to do so. There was a working from home checklist which a few employees had filled out, not including Ms Vercoe, however the Council was found to have not taken additional measures to ensure a safe working environment. The Tribunal rejected the notion that the Council needed to have contemplated the specific hazard for it to be compensable.

As to her injury occurring during her coffee break, the Tribunal considered the long standing and accepted concept that protection is afforded to authorised breaks for the purposes of daily employment. The Tribunal found that Ms Vercoe took a permitted and encouraged break to make a coffee and this falls within the limits of an authorised break. Having concluded this, the Tribunal was satisfied that the injury arose out of her employment.

The Tribunal then considered whether the employment was a significant contributing cause. For a cause to be significant it but must be important or influential. It was determined that the fact that Ms Vercoe created the workplace hazard, being the pet fence, the day prior and unbeknown to the Council, does not preclude a finding that it was an employment-related cause of her injury. As a result, the pet fence was an important or influential cause of her fall, and it was concluded that the physical workplace hazard satisfied the requirements of being a significant contributing cause of the injuries.

Accordingly, the Council was held liable for Ms Vercoe’s workers compensation claim.

Implications for employers

The case reminds employers that they are responsible for their employees’ safety while they are working from home, even during authorised breaks, and this may include circumstances where the workplace hazard is created by the employee. The decision demonstrates that efforts to reduce risk or limit autonomy are not necessarily barriers to a claim for compensation. Regardless, it is important to have guards in place to assess and mitigate safety risks which arise from work from home arrangements which may include a working from home policy and working from home checklists. The expectation should be that employees have a similar set up at home, as they do in the office, thereby limiting hazards within their at home workspace.

From a workers’ compensation perspective, while different legislative provisions/laws apply in each state, the broad risks that working from home may present, bear some similarity. This is illustrated in the State of NSW (Western NSW Local Health District) v Knight [2023] NSWPICPD 63, where a worker was found to have a compensable injury after being attacked by a dog while working home. The NSW Personal Injury Commission determined that the injury arose out of the course of employment and that employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury as required by sections 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

If you would like any further advice on how to mitigate workplace hazards, managing flexible work arrangements and preparing appropriate work from home checklists, please contact our Employment, Workplace Relations, and Safety group at McCabes Lawyers.