court decision to protect workplace safety in the modern age

[alfred russel]

I'm going to have to post this story, because I assume Tim took a pass when he couldn't figure out a way to spin it in favor of the plaintiff's bar.

Telstra forced to pay costs, compensation after worker Dale Hargreaves slips while working at home

EMPLOYER groups are outraged by a legal decision that makes employers responsible for injuries suffered by staff working from home.
Telstra will be made to pay legal and medical costs in a multimillion-dollar ruling by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Telstra worker Dale Hargreaves, 42, said she slipped down the stairs twice in two months while working on marketing campaigns from her Brisbane townhouse.

Telstra denied liability because the falls occurred outside Ms Hargreaves designated workstation.

But the tribunal found the shoulder injuries she suffered were work-related. Telstra will also have to pay compensation for lost income.

In the first fall at 6pm on August 21, 2006, Ms Hargreaves was going to get cough medicine from the fridge in her sock-clad feet. In the second at 8.40am on October 9 the same year, she was locking the front door in line with Telstra's instructions following a break-in at her home.

The tribunal found both falls "arose out of Ms Hargreaves' employment with Telstra" which made them workplace injuries.

Legal experts said the ruling could force employers to conduct workplace health and safety audits in the homes of the one-in-four Queenslanders who regularly work from their private residence for lifestyle reasons.

The Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that would be "a bad outcome for everyone concerned".

"An employer has no capacity whatsoever to determine and influence workplace health and safety arrangements at a person's home office," QCCI policy manager Nick Behrens said.

"What the ruling essentially does is significantly discourage an employer providing workplace flexibility. It could be a catalyst for a significant change in employer behaviour."

Under the terms of the ruling, Ms Hargreaves could receive millions of dollars in compensation if she is unable to work again.

Solicitor Rachael James, of Slater and Gordon, said it was a significant win for her client who had left Brisbane to live with her parents in Victoria because of her medical and financial circumstances.

"She can't dress herself for work. She is unable to do up a bra or a shirt, or carry a laptop," Ms James said. "She's going to get a whole back payment from the date of the injury up until today, and depending what the medical evidence says going forward, she could continue to receive those payments until she's 65."

A Telstra spokeswoman said the company was still examining the ruling.

Queensland University of Technology Dean of Law Michael Lavarch said employers "should not enter lightly into home work arrangements".

"Homes are inherently dangerous places," he said.

David Miller from the Australian Industry Group said working from home had the potential to create problems for employers. "What the tribunal has done is extend beyond what the employer thought was reasonable in terms of their liability for an employee's safety. That's always going to be a difficult judgment," he said.

A spokeswoman for the ACTU said employers could not "contract out health and safety obligations".

http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/telstra-forced-to-pay-costs-compensation-after-worker-dale-hargreaves-slips-while-working-at-home/story-e6freqmx-1226081601723

[Razgovory]

Where will have I go to be safe?

[Iormlund]

What the ruling essentially does is significantly discourage an employer providing workplace flexibility.

No shit. What a terrible, terrible ruling.

[grumbler]

No shit. What a terrible, terrible ruling.

Agreed.  It would probably cost less to just force workers to come into a cubicle farm than to safety-ensure all of their homes and then pay the insurance premiums to basically cover such employees 24/7.  Glad this is in Oz and not here.

[dps]

I'm not certain how it would play out here.  The general rule is that Worker's Comp covers injuries suffered while performing the duties of your job, so if could work the same.  OTOH, I've never been involved in a work-from home situation, so it's a bit beyond my experience and there could be something that specifically excludes injuries suffered in one's own home.  Also, it very likely could vary from state-to-state.

[grumbler]

I'm not certain how it would play out here.  The general rule is that Worker's Comp covers injuries suffered while performing the duties of your job, so if could work the same.  OTOH, I've never been involved in a work-from home situation, so it's a bit beyond my experience and there could be something that specifically excludes injuries suffered in one's own home.  Also, it very likely could vary from state-to-state.

The general rule here is that Worker's Comp only covers injuries suffered while performing the duties of your job.  Breaking your shoulder while locking your front door would probably not be covered, nor would walking around the slippery kitchen in socks.  Slipping on ice while walking to the car to drive to work would probably be covered; slipping on ice while walking to the car to drive to the drug store to get some cough medicine would probably not be.

[JacobL]

Where will have I go to be safe?

The bar?  Smoking bans make them the safest place on earth!

[dps]

I'm not certain how it would play out here.  The general rule is that Worker's Comp covers injuries suffered while performing the duties of your job, so if could work the same.  OTOH, I've never been involved in a work-from home situation, so it's a bit beyond my experience and there could be something that specifically excludes injuries suffered in one's own home.  Also, it very likely could vary from state-to-state.

The general rule here is that Worker's Comp only covers injuries suffered while performing the duties of your job.  Breaking your shoulder while locking your front door would probably not be covered, nor would walking around the slippery kitchen in socks.  Slipping on ice while walking to the car to drive to work would probably be covered; slipping on ice while walking to the car to drive to the drug store to get some cough medicine would probably not be.

Yes, you're correct--given the specifics of the case in the OP, the injuries wouldn't be covered by comp.  I was talking in a more general sense, though.  If you are injured in the course of doing something that's actually part of your job duties, it may be covered even if you are working from home.

[DontSayBanana]

Wouldn't fly over here- the company has no duty to maintain the homeworker's space.  In the example Grumbler provided with slipping on the driveway, I don't think that would even fly unless the plaintiff managed to show there was some affirmative agreement between the company and the worker regarding ice removal (which does happen for some employees in some situations- I remember a similar hypothetical being used in Business Law and again in Civil Litigation).

[Ideologue]

Wouldn't fly over here- the company has no duty to maintain the homeworker's space.  In the example Grumbler provided with slipping on the driveway, I don't think that would even fly unless the plaintiff managed to show there was some affirmative agreement between the company and the worker regarding ice removal.

IS IT A DETOUR OR A FROLIC?

I think that might only apply to employer liability to third persons.

[grumbler]

If you are injured in the course of doing something that's actually part of your job duties, it may be covered even if you are working from home.

I think that you are correct, and that rulings to this effect take place all the time without controversy.