How Do Employees Protect Their Rights By Fighting Injuries Caused By Work Assignments?

Around 12 o'clock in March 8, 2013, Liu Kaide had a quarrel with his colleague Hu Yi Dao in front of the company's workshop because of the work assignment problem. The two sides rolled up their sleeves, and Liu Kaide was injured in the middle finger of his right hand. He was diagnosed by the hospital as a comminuted fracture of the phalanges of the proximal phalanx of the right middle finger.

According to the social security department, Liu Kaide was injured by the accident, which accords with the provisions of the fourteenth articles and sixth items of the industrial injury insurance Ordinance.

The company sued the court to request the rescission of the work-related injury certificate.

The company believes that due to violence and other accidental injuries in performing work duties, it means that there is a causal relationship between the fact of injury and the performance of its duties.

The real reason for Liu Kaide's injuries is a quarrel between colleagues and their colleagues, and their fighting behavior is neither a work nor a work should or may have consequences.

Therefore, according to the conditions stipulated in the industrial injury insurance Ordinance, it should not be recognized as work-related injury.

The social security department argued that the evidence was enough to prove that Liu Kaide was injured by violence in his working hours and in the workplace because of violence and so on. He should be identified as an industrial injury according to law.

The court of first instance held that the fourteenth provision of the industrial injury insurance Ordinance stipulates that workers should be identified as work-related injuries in one of the following situations: (three) they are subjected to violence and other accidental injuries in their working hours and workplace.

There must be a causal relationship between the injury and the duty to perform because of the violent injury to perform its duties.

In this case, the quarrel between Liu Kaide and Hu Yi Dao is the reason for fighting. Although it is for work, it can be solved in a lawful and proper way. There is no need to fight with each other. The fight between both sides is not required to perform their duties or to perform their duties better. Therefore, Liu Kaide's injury is not due to performance.

As a result, there is no causal relationship with the performance of duties.

In addition, accidental injuries should refer to unpredicted and abrupt injuries.

Liu Kaide and Hu Yidao are both adults with normal mind. They have a certain understanding of the possible consequences of melee. They should be aware that the act may lead to injury to themselves or the other side. Therefore, Liu Kaide's injuries are not accidental in this case.

In summary, the social security department has identified Liu Kaide as a work-related injury, which is insufficient for evidence and applicable to legal errors, and the court will not maintain it.

Liu Kaide refused to accept the first instance decision. After being reexamined by the second instance of the Qingdao intermediate people's court and the high court of Shandong, he was not identified as a work-related injury.

The core issue of this case is how to understand the meaning of "being subjected to violence by performing duties".

According to the prevailing interpretation, "because of the violence of the performing duties", it generally refers to the fact that the employees have failed to achieve the purpose of unreasonable or illegal activities due to their performance of their duties, and these people have done violence to the employee for retaliation.

In the practice of industrial injury identification, "performing duties is subject to violence and other accidental injuries" emphasizes causality, and the meaning of "performing duties" is different from "work". The scope of "performing duties" is obviously less than the scope of "work".

Article fourteenth (1) of the industrial injury insurance Ordinance provides that

And workplace injury due to work reasons should be identified as work-related injuries.

Under item (three), "in working hours and in workplaces, accidental injuries caused by violence, such as performing the duties of work" shall be deemed to be work-related injuries.

These two provisions are similar in content. They are all injuries suffered in "working hours and workplaces". However, the reasons for the injuries are different. The regulations are listed in a clause.

Item 1 focuses on the reason that the cause of work is injured by accident, and the scope is much larger. Item (three) focuses on the fact that the duty of performing work is subjected to violence, and the scope is obviously much smaller than that of "work reason".

The letter from the general office of the Ministry of labor and social security on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the industrial injury insurance Ordinance provides an explanation. "Violence by performing duties is a causal relationship between the violence and the duty to perform."

The "causality" here should be interpreted as a direct causal relationship, excluding indirect causality.

Because any violence that occurs in "working hours and workplaces" may have an indirect causal relationship with employees' work. If they are identified as work-related injuries, this will infinitely expand the scope of identification of work-related injuries, which obviously does not meet the legislative intent of the industrial injury insurance Ordinance.

Therefore, it is not enough for employees to be hurt by violence only in connection with their work.

In practice, it can be understood that under specific job responsibilities, personnel who perform their duties and responsibilities should be identified as work-related injuries because of their violent injury in performing their duties.

Specific to this case, Liu Kaide was injured by Hu Yi Dao, although it has certain connection with work, but the direct cause of injury is both sides.

There is no direct cause and effect relationship between fighting and performing duties. Therefore, the court considers that it is not a work-related injury.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.