A recent South Australian workers’ compensation case has raised alarms in the HR world, potentially signaling trouble for work-from-home (WFH) arrangements. A council employee was awarded compensation after tripping over a pet fence during a coffee break at home, reigniting debates about the feasibility and risks of remote work.

Background

The employee, working remotely for the City of Charles Sturt, tripped over a 60-centimeter pet fence while making a coffee. The fence, that she had set up to contain a dog she was looking after, led to injuries in her arm and knee.

The South Australian Employment Tribunal ruled her injuries occurred during an “authorised coffee break” and were related to her employment, qualifying her for compensation.

Employer Concerns

This opens a can of worms for employers and employees alike. If employers are now liable for “home office” setups, requests for flexible WFH arrangements will face pushback. Employers will rightly balk at the prospect of monitoring the work areas of all employees on WFH arrangements.

The Bigger Picture – WFH at Risk

The case has sparked frustration among employees who fear that such rulings could signal the decline of WFH. Social media erupted with comments like, “This is how WFH dies,” and “Employers won’t want to deal with higher work cover insurance due to at-home injuries.”

Data from Robert Half indicates a growing trend of companies mandating in-office work, with two in five Australian employees now required to work in-office full-time. That’s double the number from last year. Recent decisions by major players like Amazon and Tabcorp to bring employees back into offices echo this shift.

HR’s Role: Mitigating WFH Risks

The case serves as a wake-up call for HR leaders to ensure that employees’ home workspaces meet safety standards. Tim McDonald, principal at McCabes Lawyers, emphasized, “Employers must apply the same health and safety measures for home offices as they do for traditional workplaces.” Many companies now require employees to provide photographs of their home setups to confirm compliance with workplace safety regulations. This approach helps mitigate risks, but as the recent ruling highlights, it may not completely shield employers from liability.

Implications for the Future of WFH

This case is a stark reminder of the complexities of managing remote work arrangements. For HR professionals, it highlights the importance of balancing employee flexibility with employer liability. Whether this case marks a turning point for WFH policies remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: businesses need to stay vigilant as they navigate the evolving landscape of remote work.

What’s your take on the future of WFH? Share your thoughts in the comments!