Comp ruling means inviting the boss home

A ruling that makes employers liable for injuries suffered by staff working at home is likely to shake up an informal arrangement for people working from home and mean bosses will insist on dictating the working setups in employees' homes.

A landmark case where a Telstra employee successfully claimed injuries she suffered at home were work- related has the potential to change the landscape from a fairly informal arrangement for home workplaces to something that I expect will be more tightly controlled in the future.

Simply put, things are going to get tougher for staff who work from home. If the employer is liable for any injuries at home then bosses will insist on a big say in how home work environments are set up and also what defines 'work' in the home environment.

People may not like the idea of the boss telling them how to set up things in their home, but that's the inevitable consequence if the boss is held liable for home safety.

As an injury compensation lawyer I believe home worker compensation issues could become complicated now after a Telstra worker who said she slipped down her unit stairs while working from home, won a multi-million dollar ruling from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Her employer has been ordered to pay legal and medical costs and compensate for lost income.

Telstra worker Dale Hargreaves, 42, reported she slipped down her stairs twice in a two month period in 2006, while working on marketing projects at her Brisbane townhouse.

Telstra denied it was liable, claiming the accidents happened outside her designated workstation. However the Administrative Appeals Tribunal disagreed and found her injuries were work-related in that they arose from her employment with Telstra. Thus they were workplace injuries.

It would be reasonable now to expect employers to insist on workplace health and safety audits of home workplaces, and we can expect some dramas if workers feel the boss is "invading' their home and stipulating where the carpets should be placed or what sort of ergonomic chair is used.

How intrusive could it become? It would not be unreasonable for bosses to insist any home workplace have functioning smoke alarms, non-slip work surfaces, no trip hazards or stray electrical cords, proper lighting and ventilation and a suitably approved ergonomic chair.

Further, depending on the workplace setup, handrails for stairways, fire extinguishers, barriers to prevent small children from exposure to any hazards in or around the designated workspace and clear exits from the building could be required.

However the single biggest issue is going to be proving an injury at home was work related, especially if there are no witnesses and the whole thing hangs on a worker's word. Expect worker/ employer tensions to escalate if a WorkCover claim is in the wind.

What this means is home based workers need to be especially mindful that they fully comply with all workplace safety requirements and directions from their employers to protect their rights in the case of a claim.

Telstra staff are covered by special Commonwealth Government compensation legislation but the central issue in the latest case focussed on whether the employee was working when she suffered her injuries.

What activities at home could be considered part of work or private? In a traditional workplace every aspect of activity, including using stairs, going to the bathroom or just getting a drink of water, is deemed to be happening in a workplace.

It's harder to define work/ home boundaries for a person working from home. Do you deem the whole home a workplace? If so, the boss will want a big say in how that workplace it set up. Where does 'home" end and "workspace" begin?

Will we need to more clearly define 'working hours" for home workers? If a slip down the stairs is deemed to be work- related, would it still be regarded as such if the accident occurred outside defined working hours?

Another point, home- based workers should not regard this ruling as a floodgate-opener for any and every injury at home. Employers will be especially wary about claims after the Telstra case.

Employers may insist on a designated room as the workplace whereas some home- based workers may work off the kitchen table, or close to a phone and modem jack point.

If staff object to the boss calling the shots on their home workspace setup, you could see employers refusing to allow staff to work from home even though it is a popular system these days with people having remote access to their workstations in the office and having phone calls diverted to their home.

Many employers like to be flexible with staff working arrangements, especially those with young children, but now there is a liability issue connected to home workplace arrangements, the rules may become tougher.

If a child was injured in the designated work area at home, on equipment provided or approved by the employer, could the employer be held liable?

A key unresolved issue of home/ work injury is that there's a potentially enormous problem if there are no independent witnesses to what happened.

I expect compensation claims for home workplace injuries might be more fiercely contested. Employers will be suspicious of staff who seem accident-prone at home.

Workers need to be sure their home workplace environment is clearly identifiable and a checklist of home workplace facilities and occupational health and safety safeguards could become commonplace for home- based workers.

Working from home has many advantages and benefits in 21^st Century life and especially allows people to juggle professional and family responsibilities with more ease.

As a pro-active measure people wanting to work from home should perhaps volunteer a checklist of how they are setting up their home workspace, including photos of the area, proof of proper ergonomic seating and adequate safeguards against injury.

There may be a settling down phase following the Telstra case decision, but home- based workers need to keep in mind that unless their employment agreement specifies it as a hiring condition, they are only allowed to work from home with the employers consent.

A refusal to comply with various safety requirements could see the permission cancelled and the worker ordered back to the office where the boss has more control of workplace safety issues and especially more control over any injury risks to employees.