Source: http://hestories.info/c-w-von-bergen-william-will-t-mawer-and-edward-hobbs.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:17:06+00:00

Document:
More and more employees are working outside of traditional on-site work environments in locations tied electronically to a central office. This telework or telecommuting practice has become an increasingly important employment tool, fulfilling key business needs while helping employees balance their work and personal commitments. Using the flexibility to work in a location other than ones official duty station when it is effective to do so is clearly the wave of the future, and for many employees and organizations the future is clearly here. As this telework trend grows, legal and policy issues surrounding this popular working arrangement have multiplied. This paper examines a number of key legal and policy factors employers should review before implementing telecommuting.
head on the laptop. Who is responsible for the injury?
While this may be a far-fetched scenario, in the real world of telework or telecommuting (the terms are used interchangeably) wacky things occur, and it would behoove organizations to consider adequately a number of issues before they hand their workers a laptop computer and a password to access the corporate network off-premises. This paper addresses legal and policy matters surrounding telework. It begins with a discussion of telework and its popularity, where telework occurs, key legal factors in telecommuting, and concludes with telecommuting policy considerations.
Over the years, a variety of work structures have emerged and been considered by employers in an ef­fort to attract and retain qualified workers while minimizing rising employee costs.1 Additionally, due to shifting workplace demographics, organizations are examining various strategies to accommodate workers from two-income families, single-parent households, and employees taking care of younger and older relatives.2 Furthermore, as the manufacturing sector of the economy discarded jobs, the services sector was adding them.3 Manufacturing businesses traditionally house their operations at a “central office” site where employees are expected to report for work. While most service businesses also use their operations at a specified location, the need for employers to work at this central office is not nearly so obvious.4 Indeed, the technology that allows serv­ice businesses such as banks, insurance companies, accounting firms, and retail establishments to work—email, fax machines, cellular phones, and laptop com­puters—also permits employees to com­municate with customers and co-workers from any number of locations. Lastly, a recent set of enforcement guidelines published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) strongly encourages employers to consider flexible work arrangements for their workers in order to achieve greater work-family balance, particularly for individuals having caregiving and family responsibilities.5 Thus, a number of factors including strategies designed to attract and retain valued employees, programs intended to meet the varied needs of a diverse workforce, a changing economic base, and regulatory pressures, demand consideration of alternative working arrangements. Not surprisingly, numerous practices that provide the flexibility needed by today’s workers and organizations have gained popularity in recent years.6 One such activity involves telework or telecommuting and is the topic addressed in this paper.
Despite these benefits, telecommuting is not for everyone; it also has its limitations.32 Many people simply do not have the kind of self-discipline needed to get work done without direct supervision.33 Critics argue that telecommuting arrangements are fraught with pitfalls, including em­ployee isolation, lower productivity, and reduced teamwork and camaraderie.34 It works best on jobs that require concentration, have well-defined begin­ning and end points, are easily portable, call for minimal amounts of special equipment, and can be done with little supervision.35 According to a U.S. Department of Labor study telecommuting works best for jobs that demand a high degree of privacy and concentration, are predictable, and information-based.36 In summary, telecommuting is an increasingly popular work alternative that can take place in a number of locations and has a number of benefits for workers and organizations. Telework also has some limitations and to make it more effective it requires careful adjustments in the way work is structured, especially as these relate to important policy and legal considerations as discussed in the following section.
With the advancement of technological innovations and a changing workforce, the practice of telecommuting will continue to grow and flourish. While telecommuting programs offer attractive alternatives to traditional work locations, they present legal challenges to employers because telework challenges traditional ideas of how work is structured. Not surprisingly, this phenomenon creates a host of problems for both courts and employers, who must reconcile the new telecommuting paradigm with employment laws that date back to the days of industrial factories. Foremost among these legal considerations are worker health and safety concerns, employment and labor issues, and implications for state and federal taxes. These were selected because of the broad impact such factors have on organizational performance and liability.
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) is to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions”….37 It requires these employers to provide employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized, serious hazards, and to comply with OSHA standards and regulations. 38 In order to fulfill their OSHA obligations, CSC Credit Services in August 1997 advised OSHA that it was about to require its sales executives to begin telecommuting from home. The sales executives were expected to work from a single room in their homes, using a desk, chair, file cabinet, telephone, computer, printer and facsimile machine. CSC asked OSHA to provide advice as to the nature and extent of the company’s responsibilities under the OSH Act with respect to these home-based sales executives. Two years after having received CSC’s inquiry, OSHA’s Directorate of Compliance Programs issued a letter of interpretation letter.39 In that opinion, OSHA affirmed its position that the OSH Act applied to home-based workers and that employers ultimately were responsible for ensuring safe and healthful home offices.
with the employer or employee.
OSHA’s regulation of safety conditions in the home seems firm. The balancing of an employee’s right to privacy with the employer’s duty of ensuring compliance may be somewhat difficult. In addition, OSHA places an affirmative duty upon the employer to correct those hazards the employer “is or should be aware of.” Replacing faulty computers is easy; replacing faulty wiring or unsafe stairs leading to the employee’s office is not.
OSHA’s warning of liability and workers’ compensation concerns should, at the very least, require employers to take pause before implementing any type of telecommuting arrangement.
Telecommuting presents unique challenges to safety and health—most of which have been anticipated for years. In 1984, in The Office Environment: Automation's Impact on Tomorrow's Workplace, Wilbert Galitz, estimated that 50 percent of the office workers of the future could be telecommuters. The chapter, "Toward the Year 2000," describes ergonomics/ human factors, fatigue, social isolation and stress as critical concerns. This was an early hint of the challenges to come. Recent studies related to occupational safety and health indicate that although telecommuters report higher levels of job satisfaction, they have a lower level of awareness and knowledge concerning ergonomic and safety issues (Healy, 2000).
Wilbert O. Galitz (1984). The Office Environment: Automation's Impact on Tomorrow’s Workplace. New York: American Management Society Foundation.
Merrie L. Healy. (2000). Telecommuting: Occupational Health Considerations for Employee Health and Safety. 48 American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, 305-314.
Michelle M. Robertson, Wayne S Maynard, Jamie R McDevitt. (2003). Telecommuting: Managing the safety of workers in home office environments. 48 Professional Safety, 30-36.
The telecommuter arrangement presents unique legal complications under state worker's compensation laws, including (1) whether any injury at home arose out of and in the course of employment; (2) the extent of the employer's duty and opportunity to insure workplace safety; and (3) the opportunity for employee fraud.
A majority of states provide for employer liability under workers' compensation wherever the injury occurs, provided that the injury arose out of or is related to employment and that the injury occurred in the course of employment. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act, 77 Pa. C.S.A. § 411. Under Georgia's worker's compensation laws, "in the course of employment" refers to the time, place, and circumstances under which an accident occurred. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1(4). An accident "arises in the course of employment" within the meaning of this law when it occurs (1) within the period of employment; (2) at a place where the employee reasonably would be in the performance of the employee duties; (3) while the employee was fulfilling employee duties, or is engaged in an activity incidental to fulfilling employee's duties. See, e.g., Sands v. Union Camp Corp., 559 F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1977). Because Georgia follows the "positional risk" doctrine, the employee need only prove that the employer brought the employee within the range of danger by requiring his or her presence in a location where the injury occurred. See, e.g., National Fire Ins. Co. v. Edwards, 152 Ga. App. 566, 263 S.E.2d 455 (1979). When an employee deviates from the course of his or her employment and is engaged in solely personal activity at the same of the accident, the injury is not one arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. See, e.g., General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Prescott, 80 Ga. App. 421, 56 S.E.2d 137 (1949).
Telecommuting employees working out of their homes do not benefit from the same presumption that an injury occurring in the office, factory, or facility occurred in the course of employment, rather than on a personal frolic. The test for whether or not an employee breaks the continuity of employment for personal purposes is as follows: (1) If the injury occurred before the employee returned to the line of employment, the injury is not one arising out of the course of employment; but (2) where the personal mission has been accomplished and the employee has reengaged in the duties of his or her employment, the injury arose out of or in the course of employment and is therefore compensable under Georgia law. See, e.g., Fulton County Civ. Ct. v. Elzey, 101 Ga. App. 520, 114 S.E.2d 314 (1960).
The Georgia rules requiring an employer to provide a safe workplace for its employees derives from O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, which codifies the general law that an owner or occupier of land has a duty to invitees. See, e.g., Clark v. Carla Gay Dress Co., 178 Ga. App. 157, 159, 342 S.E.2d 468 (1968). Georgia courts have applied § 51-3-1 in negligence actions brought by employees against their employers. E.g., Smith v. Ammons, 228 Ga. 855, 188 S.E.2d 866 (1972). Since § 51-3-1 is derived from ancient law on duty to invitees, it is not surprising that this laws usually applied to permanent places such as factories, stores, and offices. Thus, it is unclear whether and to what extent § 51-3-1 applies to telecommuters working from their homes.
An employee assumes the ordinary risks of his employment and is bound to exercise his own skill and diligence to protect himself. In actions for injuries arising from the negligence of the employer in failing to comply with the duties imposed by Code Section § 34-7-20, in order that the employee may recover it must appear that the employer knew or ought to have known of . . . the defects or danger in the machinery supplied; and it must also appear that the employee injured did not know and had no equal means of knowing such fact and by the exercise of ordinary care could not have known thereof.
The employer's duty to furnish and maintain a reasonably safe place to work is that of ordinary care, and the employer is not required to be an "absolute guarantor of a physical or emotionally safe workplace" or to insure an employee's safety. See, e.g., Dugger v. Miller Brewing Co., 199 Ga. App. 850, 406 S.E.2d 484 (1991); Cline v. McLeod, 180 Ga. App. 286, 293, 349 S.E.2d 232 (1986). Georgia courts have found that where an employer could discover a dangerous condition, that employer is thereby under a duty to inspect the workplace and warn its employee as to such dangers. See, e.g., Clark, supra, 178 Ga. App. at 159, 342 S.E.2d at 468. Where there is nothing in the workplace to indicate the presence of a dangerous condition, the law refuses to require inspection by the employer. See, e.g., Williamson v. Kidd, 65 Ga. App. 285, 155 S.E.2d 801 (1941). If the employee could discover the dangerous condition through ordinary care, the employee is generally unable to recover from the employer under the safe workplace rules. See, e.g., Holman v. American Auto. Ins. Co., 201 Ga. 454, 461, 39 S.E.2d 850 (1946); Clark, supra, 178 Ga. App. at 158-59, 342 S.E.2d at 468. The duty on the employee is not a duty to inspect, but rather to observe open and obvious dangers such as would be disclosed by the exercise of ordinary care. See, e.g., Owensby v. Jones, 109 Ga. App. 398, 399, 136 S.E.2d 451 (1964). The rules concerning a safe workplace continue throughout the duration of the employee's work day and apply within the employer's entire premises. Therefore, an employee working out of a home office in a telecommuting situation may be covered by the safe workplace laws to the same extent as an employee injured while using an employer provided cafeteria on the premises, a satellite office, or a mobile trailer.
Finally, an employee may not recover additional damages under safe workplace rules over and above those contained in the Georgia Worker's Compensation Act. See, e.g., Dugger, supra, 199 Ga. App. at 850, 406 S.E.2d at 484.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ("OSHA") may preempt some claims under the safe workplace rules. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 667(a)(preempting states from "asserting jurisdiction under state law over any occupational safety or health issue with respect to which [an OSHA] standard is in effect under Section 655").
In addition to Georgia's workplace safety rules, OSHA requires a covered employer to provide a workplace free from hazards that are likely to cause serious harm or injury. E.g., 29 U.S.C. § 654. Again, although telecommuting is not expressly included in the statutory definition of "place of employment," this definition is broadly interpreted and will likely include at least the home office portion of the telecommuting employee's residence. In order to avoid OSHA liability, an employer should work with the employee in designing and maintaining a safe, hazard-free home office. The telecommuting agreement should allow for the employer to conduct periodic inspections of the telecommuting work space.
In the majority of accidents involving telecommuters, there will be no witness to the accident other than a pet or infant child. The employer must rely solely on the employee's story as to whether the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. Notwithstanding this disadvantage, employers should still require telecommuting employees to follow the same procedures in recording an injury within a certain number of hours, inspecting the premises, and investigating the cause of the injury. These procedures should be set forth in the telecommuting agreement.

References: § 411
 § 34
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 § 51
 v. 
 § 51
 § 51
 § 34
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 667
 § 654