Work-related injury case sharing 14: Can an injury sustained while closing a window be considered a work-related injury?

Thread Content

Case details: Qian worked on component modeling at a machinery company. At around 5 p.m. on August 7, 2015, Qian returned home from work, which was just separated from the factory by a wall. Seeing that the windows of the company’s workshop were unlocked in the yard, he stood on a stool to close them. Due to excessive force, the glass window broke and fell down, causing multiple injuries to his body. After the accident, Qian submitted an application for work-related injury recognition to the social insurance administration department. Analysis: During the handling of this case, the machinery company argued that the accident occurred after Qian returned home; his home did not constitute a production area, and the accident did not take place during working hours. Therefore, Qian’s injury should not be considered an occupational injury. After conducting on-site investigations and gathering evidence, the social insurance administration department determined that the injury accident caused by Qian closing the windows for the company after work met the requirements of Article 14, Item (2) of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, and therefore it should be classified as a work-related injury. According to Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance: \"If an employee suffers an accident injury while carrying out preparatory or concluding work related to their job inside the workplace before or after working hours, it shall be recognized as a work-related injury.\" ” Generally speaking, employees closing the doors and windows after finishing their work in the workshop is also part of fulfilling their job responsibilities. When he got off work that day, the windows had been forgotten to be closed due to an employee’s negligence; for the sake of the company’s safety, Qian went home after work and closed the windows, which should be considered as performing routine closing tasks. As for the “workplace,” it should not be understood in a narrow sense; not only must the principle of legality be adhered to, but its rationality must also be reflected. The workplace is a specific place where workers carry out their tasks; it is an area that has a direct connection to the workers. It also includes various facilities and areas designed to improve work efficiency and facilitate workers’ tasks, such as factory toilets, changing rooms, and rest rooms. To truly reflect the value and fundamental principles of work-related injury insurance legislation, the scope of the workplace should be extended to unspecified areas related to the workers’ job activities. This area is directly related to the interests of workers and employers, and its scope can even extend to the entire factory where the workers work. Conclusion: This case has its particularities. Although Qian was in his own yard after work, he closed the company’s windows, which means he had entered the workplace. Therefore, he has suffered harm for the company’s safety interests, meeting the substantive requirements for recognizing an injury as a work-related injury under the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance.