Cedric Stephens | Underinvesting in remote work a risky bet

MC Systems, a local technology company, identified six key trends that local businesses should watch out for during 2021. The company’s January 20 advertorial had useful and up to date information that was professionally researched, written, and customised for a Jamaican audience.

The brokers that sponsor insurance advertorials that appear in this newspaper can learn many things from MC Systems. Unfortunately, more insurance entities have not recognised the need for similar initiatives to increase the quality of their communication with customers and prospective consumers.

Heading MC Systems’ list of six important trends was the expansion in remote working and video conferencing. I will hazard a guess that few insurance companies and broker CEOs read the sponsored message, linked this quickly evolving trend and the risks that working from home will pose and considered the insurance implications. According to the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Risk Report, this would be another classic example of ‘risk management short-sightedness’.

Alex Wright, a UK journalist, argued in a February 1 magazine article that “the COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a new way of working. As companies shut offices and other workplaces under stay-at-home orders, employees have had to work from home or remotely. The benefits of telecommuting are obvious: Businesses can reduce overheads such as rent and electricity bills while staff can work efficiently from home and achieve a better work-life balance. Yet, as the pandemic has played out, a host of previously overlooked risks have emerged, primarily worker health and well-being.

“As staff continue to work from home out of full sight of their employer, so the chances of them developing a serious physical or mental condition have increased. These range from common musculoskeletal disorders such as neck and back pain, carpal tunnel, or eyestrain to more complex mental health issues like anxiety and depression.”

The situation in Jamaica is no different. One local educator writing about online education said teachers “suffer from dry eyes, vision fatigue, headaches, and a host of other ailments, some of which we never even knew existed. Poor posture and sitting all day have resulted in all kinds of back, neck, and wrist aches that make teaching uncomfortable”.

Anecdotal information from persons in my small circle suggests that many companies have no formal procedures in place for remote-work. Few have implemented measures to ensure their employees have the right equipment to do their jobs from home. At the same time, many employees are working longer hours and often feel anxious and depressed: They are just grinning and bearing it.

On March 31, 2019, and on January 19, 2020, this column discussed two local workplace claims that were made against employers. Both ended up before the courts. They are important in evaluating working-from-home risks. Both claims resulted in multimillion-dollar awards to the ex-employees.

In one case, the award amounted to $35 million. In that instance, the judge ruled that the employer was negligent because it was in breach of its legal duty to provide the employee with a safe system of work.

In the other case, a nearly $600 million award was made to a former employee who suffered grave injuries at the workplace. The company was liquidated to settle the claim. One of the pillars on which this claim was built was that the employer had failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the place and circumstances under which the claimant worked were safe. The practice of using one’s home as a workplace is not without risks for employers.

The two court rulings are consistent with the aims of the still-gestating Occupational Health and Safety Act. It is to “prevent accident and injury to health arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of work by protecting workers from harm to their safety, health, and welfare through the elimination or minimisation of hazards, serious injury, and risks arising from plant, substances, and structures.”

Typically, some workplace liability risks are insured under employers’ liability insurance policies. Are these coverages in place? Do they offer any protection to employers whose workers may suffer injuries while working from their homes? Similarly, are the limits under these coverages adequate?

Responses to these and other questions are best answered in advance of unexpected events. ln the two cases previously cited, Curlon Orlando Lawrence v Channus Block and Marl Quarry Ltd and Janet Edwards v Jamaica Beverages Ltd, the owners learned the answers when it was too late.

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. For free information or counsel, write to: aegis@flowja.com