Introduction
In an era where remote work has become the norm, the boundaries between home and workplace continue to blur. In a recent case, a council employee injured herself while stepping over a pet fence at home during an authorized coffee break, leading to a successful workers compensation claim. In the ruling of Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024], the South Australian Employment Tribunal ruled that, despite the injury occurring in her home, the pet fence was a "workplace hazard" and a significant factor in her injury. This case raises important questions about employer responsibilities in remote work environments.
Case Background
Lauren Vercoe, a City of Charles Sturt employee, was injured on 19 September 2022 while working from home. She tripped over a 60cm metal pet fence she had erected to separate her colleague’s puppy from her pet rabbit, injuring her right humerus and knee. At the time of the fall, she was on a paid coffee break. Her claim for compensation was initially rejected by the Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme, but Vercoe argued that her injuries arose out of her employment.
The tribunal had to determine whether the injury occurred in the course of employment, under section 7(5)(b) of the Return to Work Act 2014, and if Vercoe’s employment was a significant contributing factor to her injuries.
Considerations Related to Determining ‘Injury Occurred in the Course of Employment’
The tribunal found that Vercoe’s injuries occurred during an authorized coffee break while she was working from home. Magistrate Carrel acknowledged that the break was consistent with workplace practices, and taking a coffee break was a typical activity during the workday. Since Vercoe was performing a work-related activity during the break, the injury occurred "in the course of employment." The pet fence was part of her home workspace, which was considered her place of employment on that day.
This highlights that even if employees are working remotely, activities such as breaks that would normally occur in a traditional office setting are covered under workers compensation laws. The ruling reaffirms that employees working from home are entitled to the same protections as those working in the office.
Considerations Related to Determining ‘Employment Was a Significant Contributing Factor’
Another critical issue was whether Vercoe’s employment was a significant contributing cause of her injuries. Magistrate Carrel concluded that the pet fence, although erected by Vercoe herself, constituted a “physical workplace hazard.” The fact that the fence was unknown to the employer did not limit Vercoe's entitlement to compensation. The ruling reinforced that hazards in a remote work environment, even those introduced by employees, could still be viewed as arising out of employment, provided they were linked to the workspace.
Magistrate Carrel emphasized that under the Return to Work Act, employment need not be the only cause of the injury, but it must be an important and influential factor. In this case, the physical hazard created by the pet fence was deemed a significant factor in Vercoe’s fall and injuries.
Findings of Fact and Consideration
The tribunal found that Vercoe’s fall over the pet fence and resulting injuries occurred in the course of her employment. The court accepted that Vercoe’s sunroom was her authorized place of work, and the coffee break was part of her normal working routine. While the respondent argued that the pet fence was unrelated to work, the court ruled that the fence was a feature of her home workplace and therefore part of the work environment.
Magistrate Carrel also addressed inconsistencies in Vercoe’s reporting of her right knee injury, noting that her evidence regarding the severity of the injury was not fully supported by medical records. The court found that while Vercoe sustained a temporary knee injury in addition to her right humerus fracture, the knee injury did not persist beyond 29 September 2022. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the injuries qualified for compensation, as both arose from the employment context.
Implications for Employers
The Vercoe case highlights several important lessons for employers managing remote work:
- Workplace Safety Extends to Home Environments: Employers must consider that home offices are an extension of the workplace. Even hazards unknown to the employer, such as the pet fence in this case, can lead to compensable injuries if they arise from work-related activities.
- Risk Assessments and Safety Guidelines: Employers should implement and enforce robust risk assessments for remote workers to identify and mitigate potential hazards. Safety training and guidelines should cover the specific challenges of home-based work environments.
- Authorized Breaks and Work Practices: This case reinforces that activities such as coffee breaks, even when taken in a home setting, are part of the workday and therefore covered under workers compensation. Employers should ensure that policies and practices for breaks are clear and consistent, regardless of where the employee is working.
Conclusion
The Vercoe case provides a cautionary example for employers as the boundaries between office and home workplaces blur in the era of flexible working arrangements. It underscores the importance of extending workplace health and safety protocols to home offices and ensuring that employees working remotely are adequately protected.
Employers must remain proactive in managing remote work risks, recognizing that even home-based hazards can result in liability under workers compensation schemes.
Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91 (18 October 2024)
Last Updated: 22 October 2024
Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [ 2024] SAET 91
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/91.html
Savvy HR Services
Savvy Human Resources Consulting Services provides independent workplace investigations to a high standard of procedural and substantive fairness, intellectual rigour and sensitivity.
We use our Human Resources Consulting know-how and investigation experience to support clients to deal with informal complaints through to conducting formal site-based investigations. Learn more ...
Savvy’s trauma informed approach to workplace investigation and workplace mediation processes will assist employers to manage the risks of psychosocial hazards that might arise for participants that have experienced trauma.
Savvy HR is a specialist consultancy with extensive experience conducting workplace investigations of sensitive matters ranging from informal complaints to complex allegations of harassment and bullying that might escalate into WorkCover claims or Fair Work Commission (FWC) matters.
For workplace consulting, employment advice, employment relations support Ballina, Brisbane & Sydney contact Savvy HR.
For Human Resources Consulting Gold Coast Human Resources Ballina Human Resources Sydney contact Savvy HR.
Prohibition on republication: No part of this publication may be copied or reproduced without the written consent of Savvy Human Resources Associates Pty Ltd (SAVVYHR).
Disclaimer: This publication is provided in good faith by way of general guidance only to assist employers and their employees and is for information purposes only. It is not to be construed by the reader as legal advice or as a recommendation to take a particular course of action in the conduct of their business or personal affairs. The Information may be based on data supplied by third parties. We do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. You should not rely upon the material as a basis for action that may expose you to a legal liability, injury, loss or damage and it is recommended that you obtain your own advice relevant to your particular circumstances. Savvy Human Resources Associates Pty Ltd & SAVVYHR do not accept responsibility for any inaccuracy and is not liable for any loss or damages arising either directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on, use of or inability to use any information provided in this article.
