Employers in recent years are more inclined to grant
employees flexible work arrangements including working from home. The result is
that many employees are not restricted to traditional physical locations such
as an office. Recent cases have shined a light on the laws surrounding these
arrangements and the conflict with worker’s compensation for injuries.
For employers, the flexibility granted to employees comes
with some degree of risk. The careful controls and Workplace Health and Safety
procedures employers invest significant resources to implement around the
office may not be suited to a home environment where the risks of injury are
outside their control.
The important question is whether the injury arises out
of or in connection with the course of employment. This includes injuries
which are sustained;
- While physically
in the place of employment, or
- While
temporarily absent from the place of employment for an ordinary recess,
for example a regular or scheduled break.
If an employee takes a “frolic”, for example by going for
a run in the middle of the day, this is not an ordinary recess. Other examples of
frolics include;
- Where an employee
courier driver deviates from the route the employer planned for them,
- Where an
employee goes somewhere the employer told them not to go, and
- Where an
employee takes more breaks than the employer prescribes.
The take-home
message (sorry, couldn’t resist!) is that simply because employees are granted
flexible working arrangements, they are not necessary entitled to compensation
for injuries that arise while working flexibly from home.
A lesson for employers is to ensure adequate
controls are established for the employee’s home environment. We advise clients
that this is best accomplished by giving the employee
