Examining Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91 and its implications for remote safe work.
The recent South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) case, Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91, has sparked critical discussions on employer liability and workplace safety in remote work environments. With remote work becoming a permanent feature of many workplaces, the case underscores the complexities of ensuring employee work safety at home. This article explores the details of the case, the tribunal’s decision, and key takeaways for employers navigating the new landscape of remote work safety.
Background: What Happened in the Vercoe Case?
Lauren Vercoe, an Asset Programmer employed by the City of Charles Sturt, was authorised to work from home on September 19, 2022, to care for a colleague’s puppy. To keep the puppy separate from her pet rabbit, she set up a temporary pet gate in the doorway of her sunroom, which served as her home office. While taking an authorised coffee break, Vercoe attempted to step over the fence, tripped, and sustained injuries to her shoulder and knee.
Vercoe filed a workers’ compensation claim, arguing that her injuries arose from employment, as her home office was her designated workplace for the day, and the accident occurred during a paid break. The Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme initially rejected the claim, arguing that the pet fence was a self-created hazard that her employer neither required nor authorised, and therefore her employment was not a significant contributing factor in the incident.
SAET’s Decision: Key Findings and Rationale
The SAET examined two central questions:
1. Did the injury arise out of employment?
2. Was the employee’s employment a significant contributing cause of the injury?
In response to the first question, the tribunal concluded that Vercoe’s injury did arise out of her employment. The tribunal noted that the injury occurred during an authorised, paid break at her designated workspace, and that her employer encouraged regular short breaks from the workstation, establishing a link between her employment and the injury.
As for the second question, the tribunal determined that the pet fence, although installed by Vercoe herself, was a feature of her home workplace on that day. The tribunal emphasized that under the workers’ compensation scheme, which operates on a no-fault basis, the origin of the hazard is less relevant than whether the injury occurred within the scope of employment. Thus, despite the pet fence being a non-standard feature, the tribunal ruled in Vercoe’s favor, entitling her to workers’ compensation.
Key learnings for employers in remote work arrangements
The SAET’s decision offers crucial insights for employers as they adapt to new responsibilities in remote work settings. Here are some essential takeaways for employers:
1. Recognise that a home can be considered a legitimate workplace
This case reaffirms that an employee’s home, once approved for remote work, becomes an extension of the workplace under work health and safety (WHS) laws. Employers must therefore take a proactive role in assessing home environments for potential risks. This recognition allows employers to develop a more structured approach to remote work safety, addressing hazards specific to each home environment.
2. Request information on Non-Standard features of the home workspace
One of the most significant insights from this case is the need for employers to be aware of any non-standard features that could pose unique risks. The pet gate set up by Vercoe is a prime example of a potential hazard that was specific to her remote workspace. The employer likely didn’t know about it.
- Encouraging Disclosure – Employers should encourage employees to disclose any non-standard features in their home workspace. Temporary items, like pet gates, furniture, or equipment used for dual purposes, should be highlighted to anticipate and manage these unique risks.
- Addressing Hazards – Once these features are identified, employers can offer guidance on safer alternatives. For instance, if Vercoe’s employer had been aware of the pet gate, they could have potentially suggested a different setup to prevent tripping hazards.
3. Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Work-from-Home Safety Policy
Employers should implement detailed work-from-home safety policies and procedures, which include guidelines for setting up a safe and ergonomic workspace. Safety policies should also address:
- Non-Standard Hazards Checklist – Employees should complete a checklist that specifically identifies any non-standard features in the workspace, helping both employer and employee acknowledge unique risks.
- Workspace Setup – Employers can provide guidance on arranging a workspace to avoid obstructions or risks, such as clear walkways, ergonomic seating, and safe storage of any items that could become tripping hazards.
4. Foster a Work Safety-Conscious Remote Work Culture
Building a work safety-conscious culture is vital, especially with the increased autonomy that remote work allows. Employers should:
- Maintain Open Communication – Establish a clear reporting system where employees feel comfortable disclosing safety concerns or non-standard items in their home workspace.
- Encourage Safe Break Practices – Employers should remind employees of safe practices, particularly when moving around their home workspace during breaks. Guidance on clearing walkways and removing temporary hazards can prevent accidents.
5. Provide Safety Training for Remote Work Hazards
Training on WHS best practices for home office environments can be instrumental in preventing injuries. Employers should offer resources or training on topics like:
- Home Ergonomics – Proper posture, desk setup, and workspace lighting are essential to avoid musculoskeletal issues.
- Safe Navigation in the Home Office – Employees may need reminders about avoiding trip hazards, such as pet gates or loose rugs. Periodic reminders and simple visual training tools can reinforce the importance of these considerations.
6. Review Workers’ Compensation Policies to Ensure Remote Coverage
The Vercoe case highlights that remote work arrangements bring new and often unexpected liabilities. Employers should review workers’ compensation policies to ensure adequate coverage for incidents that may occur in a home setting. Ensuring comprehensive coverage that considers remote-specific risks can protect both the employer and employee.
7. Periodic Remote Work Environment Assessments
If feasible, conducting virtual assessments—either through video walkthroughs or self-audits—can help identify non-standard elements that may otherwise go unnoticed. This regular assessment allows the employer to spot unique risks, and employees may find new ways to minimize or remove hazards.
8. Establish a Protocol for Reporting Workspace Adjustments
Home workspaces may evolve, with employees adjusting furniture, adding new items, or changing layouts. Employers should implement a system for employees to report significant changes to their workspace, which could introduce new risks. For example, a newly installed pet gate or other makeshift barriers should be communicated to the employer so they can provide guidance.
Conclusion
The Lauren Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme case sets an important precedent for how WHS laws might apply to remote work settings. It reinforces that employers bear responsibility for employees’ safety even in home environments. With flexible work arrangements becoming increasingly common in workplaces, employers must adopt policies and practices that address the unique safety challenges of remote workspaces.
Developing comprehensive work-from-home policies, encouraging open communication about hazards, and offering training on remote-specific risks are all essential steps to minimise safety risks. The Vercoe case serves as a reminder that while remote work provides benefits, it also requires vigilance in managing health and safety—whether in a traditional office or the varied spaces of employees’ homes.
You might like to read our other article on
Disclaimer – This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for consulting a qualified legal professional regarding any specific workplace safety or employment law concerns. Employers should seek personalised guidance from a legal professional or workplace safety consultant to address their particular circumstances and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Leave A Comment