Occupational accidents of teleworkers: what jurisprudence says given the lack of information from lawmakers

Abstract

The breakneck progress of new technologies is revolutionising every aspect of human life. Among them, of course, is the world of labour relations, in which teleworking has already entered a phase of consolidation. As is well known, teleworking skyrocketed during COVID-19 lockdowns and is seemingly here to stay. In this scenario, it is surprising that neither Law 10/2021 of 9 July on Remote Working nor the General Law on Social Security, or any other law, have established specific provisions of social protection for this particular group of professionals, especially with regard to the time and space of their work. The most notable absence is that of a specific concept of an occupational accident, which on a theoretical level raises numerous questions which, in their practical application, judges and courts are having to resolve by extrapolating the interpretative lines given by the Supreme Court on claims related to office workers. However, can these reasonings used in archetypal cases of service provision also determine which contingency should be attributed to injuries caused in a territory that mostly bans company inspections, the actions of occupational health services, and the Office of Employment Inspection? Should the presumption of working patterns in Art. 156.3 of the General Law on Social Security be considered extendable to commuting accidents, to work-related accidents, or to sudden-onset illnesses within the four inviolable walls of the worker’s home? This article explains how the court interpreter answered some of these questions. For any unanswered questions, we need to settle for the legal principle speculations made by scholars who have previously discussed the subject. Finally, the conclusions are shown and legislative proposals are made.