Who’s looking after you when you’re working at home?

That’s the question that’s top of mind for Paul Jarvie, the EMA’s Employment Relations and Safety Manager, and at the forefront of how you keep your employees safe in this new environment of much more flexible working.

The Safe Safeguard New Zealand Health and Safety Awards Lifetime Achievement winner is working on a project with ACC, Worksafe and other partners to unravel duty of care for employers when it comes to remote workers.

While case law around this issue is still evolving in New Zealand, there’s some alarming examples overseas that suggest working from home could increase duty of care and most Kiwi companies are probably not doing enough.

The current suite of laws that cover remote working all have different definitions and intersect at various levels. It’s this myriad of complexity that is difficult to map for employers.

“Remote working has always been around, but generally as part of rehab, or for some personal reason, and it was short term. COVID lockdowns forced entire companies to work from home with very little time to prepare. Now hybrid and remote work is becoming part of business policy and we need more guidance around how to manage that well and minimise the risk of harm for employees and the business,” Mr Jarvie says.

In Germany, an insurance company declined a claim for compensation when a remote worker slipped and broke his back walking down a spiral staircase. The court found that because the stairs led from his bedroom to his office and it was his first trip of the day, it was considered ‘a commute’, and it was a workplace accident.

“This raises a lot of questions and we’re trying to find the answers,” says Mr Jarvie. “Should his home have been assessed for risks like we do in the office? If his stairs were slippery, would the employer have to pay to make them safe?  If it was his second trip down the stairs, is that still a commute?”

Providing clarity for employers around what does legal compliance, workplace compliance and best practice look like is the aim of the project. 

“We already know that legal compliance involves doing what is reasonable and practical, while a level above that might include some pastoral care. At the top end of the scale, best practice would be a full wrap-around service. That might include visits to their home to assess the environment, regular virtual check-ins and providing training and supporting material.“

In Australia, an even more serious case resulted in a woman’s death at home and the court ruled that it occurred during the course of her employment.

“That case showed that bosses need to go beyond what they would normally do in the workplace to minimise risk. When you can’t look across the room to check your staff are OK, how do you monitor their health, how do recognise when there’s an escalating risk of harm?”

The project team are about to begin drafting a set of documents for the final format on this complex issue. But Mr Jarvie cautions this is a live issue, now.

“I wouldn’t advise businesses to wait to be told what to do. They should already be discussing what duty of care for their remote staff looks like, and then question is it enough?”

For more reformation around the project and your duty of care for remote workers, watch an interview with Paul Jarvie on the EMACast.