Written by
At work, or on the way to work?
The Appeals Permission Board has given the Supreme Court the opportunity to decide a case about whether an industrial injury sustained by an employee on the way to work is covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Written by
Malene Langermann
Forfattere
According to the Workers’ Compensation Act, an industrial injury is defined as an accident or occupational disease that is a consequence of work or the conditions under which work is carried out. Consequently, injuries that occur during transport to and from work are generally not covered by the Act, whilst injuries occurring during transport that is considered part of the work or is deemed to be in the employer’s interest are covered by the Act. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was recently granted in a case focusing exactly on this topic.
The case concerned an employee who worked at several municipal daycare centres and alternated between working at one of these daycare centres and her office space at the municipality. The industrial accident – which took the form of a traffic accident – occurred when the employee was en route from her home to the daycare centre where she had her first meeting of the day.
The Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work found that the accident was covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act, as the transport between the employee’s home and the daycare centre had occurred in connection with work or the conditions under which work had been carried out. The Council attached importance to the fact that the employee had started the day’s work when she, before leaving home, had checked her emails and briefly prepared for a meeting for the day in question. This had taken 15-20 minutes.
Actual work
The municipality brought an action against the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work, contending that the employee was not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act at the time of the traffic accident. Among other things, the municipality referred to the fact that it had not been established that the employee had carried out actual work in the morning or that the work had been in the employer’s interest, and that, according to the employee’s manager, no homeworking had been agreed on that day.
The district court found that the employee had performed actual work and that she was entitled to work from home without prior agreement. The high court concurred with the assessment that the employee had worked from home in the morning and that this was not in conflict with the terms of her employment.
However, a majority of the high court judges found that the employment with the municipality, or the interests of the municipality, had not had such an influence on the transport that there was basis for departing from the principle that transport from home to the workplace is not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work was therefore ordered to acknowledge that the industrial injury was not covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The Appeals Permission Board recently granted permission to appeal the case to the Supreme Court to the Council of Appeal on Health and Safety at Work.
Norrbom Vinding will continue to follow the case and report when the Supreme Court has rendered its decision.
Norrbom Vinding notes
With the permission from the Appeals Permission Board, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to decide on the issue of whether transport to and from work is covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act in a situation where a short period of homeworking precedes the transport.
The content of the above is not, and should not be a substitute for legal advice.
Forfattere