On 18 October 2024, the South Australian Employment Tribunal delivered a judgment in Vercoe v Local Government Association Workers Compensation Scheme [2024] SAET 91. This case has significant implications for remote work injury liability. Lauren Vercoe tripped over a pet fence she set up in her home while working remotely. She filed a workers’ compensation claim. Vercoe argued that her injuries arose from her employment. Her employer contested this claim. They argued the pet fence was a personal choice and not a workplace hazard. Therefore, it was not compensable under workers’ compensation.
Case Summary
Lauren Vercoe, an Asset Programmer for the City of Charles Sturt, worked from home on 19 September 2022. She was dog-sitting for a colleague’s puppy. To keep the puppy away from her pet rabbit, she set up a 60cm pet fence in her sunroom. Vercoe tripped over the pet fence while on a coffee break. Vercoe’s resulting injuries—a fractured shoulder and knee injury—became the basis of her claim.
There were two questions that the Tribunal had to answer:
- Firstly, did her injuries arise out of her employment, and
- Secondly was the physical workplace hazard a significant contributing cause to her injuries.
The Tribunal ruled that an employee’s home may be regarded as a “place of employment” on remote workdays under the Act. This decision made Vercoe’s home setup, including the pet fence, part of her workplace for that day. Despite Vercoe being the one to install the pet fence, and her employer being unaware of its existence, the Tribunal ruled that her injuries were compensable. Furthermore, the Tribunal acknowledged Vercoe’s coffee break was an “authorised break” as part of her employment. As such, the Tribunal was satisfied that the injury arose out of her employment. The second requirement was also met as the Tribunal was satisfied that the pet fence hazard was the only cause of Vercoe’s injuries.
Implications for Employers
It is unclear whether a similar approach of the South Australian court will be followed in other jurisdictions, including NSW. However, this case suggests that employers with remote staff could bear liability for injuries stemming from unique home-based hazards. This reinforces the importance of addressing remote work injury liability. Although the Council in this case had made Lauren Vercoe complete a superficial checklist to spot workplace hazards in her remote work environment, they had otherwise not involved themselves with regulating the safety of her remote work environment. As remote work continues, employers may increasingly face liability for home-specific risks. As such, employers may need to take preventative steps to assess, manage, and mitigate potential hazards in employees’ home work environments.
Conclusion
The Vercoe ruling expands the concept of workplace injury and highlights the changing nature of employment risks in remote work. With home offices here to stay, similar cases could push employers to rethink policies on remote work environments. It remains to be seen whether this trend will spread beyond South Australia. However, employment law now firmly includes home workspaces, with all their quirks.
This article does not provide legal advice and serves only to offer general academic information. If you require qualified legal advice on workplace injury, our experienced team of solicitors at Jake McKinley are here to help. Please get in touch with us on 02 9232 8033 today or make an enquiry here
