Case Background
The case involved a doctor who was working from home during a weekend shift. After a work session on Sunday morning, the doctor went out to the garden to take a lunch break. On her way out, she tripped and sustained permanent injuries to her foot. The doctor applied for the injury to be recognized as an occupational injury, but the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) denied the claim. The case was brought before the Social Security Court, which upheld the NAV Appeals Board’s denial. The case was then taken to the courts.
According to § 13-6 second paragraph of the National Insurance Act, occupational injury coverage applies to occupational injuries that occur while the employee is at work, at the workplace, during working hours. For injuries that occur outside the regular workplace, the crucial factor is whether the employee was ‘at work’ when the accident happened. The question for the Supreme Court was whether the injury in this case could be considered an occupational injury.
Supreme Court’s Assessment of Occupational Injury Coverage at Home Office
The Supreme Court (dissent 3-2) concluded that the injury the doctor sustained during her lunch break was not covered by the occupational injury insurance under § 13-6 of the National Insurance Act because she was not “at work” when the accident occurred.
The term “at work” implies that there must be a connection between the work and the accident. There is a practice of interpreting the wording of the law expansively so that injuries occurring during accidents in eating and resting breaks, during company doctor visits, fitness activities, and similar at the regular workplace are covered by occupational injury insurance. This must be seen in context with the purpose of the occupational injury coverage, which is to provide compensation for the particular risk assumed to be associated with the work an employee performs.
About Occupational Injuries at Home Office
The home office arrangement has certain characteristics that differ from work performed either at the regular workplace or at another location designated by the employer outside the employee’s home. The judgment emphasizes that the home is a place where the employee also resides otherwise, making the temporal distinction between work life and private life, which is natural at a workplace outside the home, not as natural when working from home. There is then a likelihood that performing work tasks and private chores will intermingle.
Based on these characteristics, the majority of the Supreme Court concluded that the lenient practice does not apply to injuries that occur during eating and resting breaks between two work sessions at a home office. It was irrelevant that the doctor had worked just before the lunch break and had planned to continue working after the break. Furthermore, it was also irrelevant that she was on weekend duty and was called on the duty phone shortly after the accident occurred.
The minority of the Supreme Court argued that employees should also be covered for occupational injuries for accidents that occur during breaks at the home office. It was pointed out that there has been significant societal development since the rules on occupational injury coverage were developed, and that the use of home offices is now well established. Therefore, the minority believed that the law’s expression “at work” must be interpreted and applied to a new factual situation.
The Judgment’s Implications for Work from Home Office
The judgment establishes that employees who take breaks from work at a home office are not covered by the National Insurance Act’s occupational injury coverage. This implies that employees have a particular risk for their own safety during eating and resting breaks between work sessions conducted from home.
The judgment was passed with the narrowest possible margin, with a dissent of 3-2. The minority’s reference to societal development signals to the legislator to consider revising the National Insurance Act’s rules on occupational injury coverage. In the wake of the pandemic and in line with technological advancements, it is reasonable to assume that an increasing number of employees may face similar situations. Thus, it is a highly relevant issue, and there is reason to question whether the majority’s conclusion is in keeping with the times.
For employers, we believe it is important to inform all employees that they have their own safety responsibility at the home office, and to outline the risks they bear by engaging in private activities concurrently with performing work tasks. In many companies, it has become more common over time not to have enough office spaces for all employees, which encourages more use of home offices. For employers with such arrangements, we recommend considering whether to offer an extended insurance plan to employees that covers such accident situations.
