The legal framework governing an employer's liability for workplace injuries is contained in Sections § 195 – § 198 of Act No. 311/2001 Coll., the Labour Code, as amended (hereinafter the "Labour Code"). Under this liability the employer is strictly (objectively) liable for the harmful event constituting a workplace injury, irrespective of whether or not the employer caused the damage through fault. In order for the employer to be liable for the damage, however, the Labour Code establishes preconditions of liability that must be satisfied simultaneously. These preconditions are:
a) a workplace injury,
b) damage on the part of the employee,
c) a causal link between the workplace injury and the damage on the part of the employee.
The injured employee bears the burden of proving the above facts. In Section § 195(2) the Labour Code defines that "a workplace injury is damage to health caused to an employee in the performance of work tasks or in direct connection therewith, independently of the employee's will, by the short-term, sudden and violent action of external factors". Likewise, according to case law, a workplace injury means an impairment of health caused to an employee in the performance of work tasks or in direct connection therewith, independently of the employee's will, by the short-term, sudden and violent action of external factors (mechanical, chemical, etc.). An impairment of health means not only physical but also psychological harm. The immediate cause may be either a psychological shock (a one-off overload in performing particularly demanding tasks) or a physical shock (an unusual, one-off work exertion not corresponding to the ordinary workload). It need not be the sole cause of the injury; it is sufficient that it is one of the causes, provided it is an important, substantial and significant one.
In the case of a workplace injury, a causal link must always be proven between the impairment of health and the injury process. It is not sufficient merely to admit the possibility that the employee's state of health deteriorated as a result of an impairment of health caused by the injury event in the performance of work tasks or in direct connection therewith. If an injury occurs at a time when the employee is neither performing a work task nor carrying out an activity directly connected with the performance of work tasks, then it cannot be a workplace injury. There can be no talk of a workplace injury where the employee's health was impaired at a time when he had departed from the performance of work tasks and a so-called excess occurred.
Under Section § 220(1) of the Labour Code, the performance of work tasks means "the exercise of work duties arising from the employment relationship, other activity carried out at the employer's instruction and activity that is the subject of a business trip". At the same time, activity in direct connection with the performance of work tasks means "acts necessary for the performance of work and acts customary during work or necessary before the start of work or after its completion. Such acts do not include the journey to and from work, meals, treatment or examination at a medical facility, or the journey to and from them. An examination at a medical facility carried out at the employer's instruction, or first-aid treatment and the journey to and from it, are acts in direct connection with the performance of work tasks".
The employee is obliged to notify the employer without undue delay of the occurrence of any workplace injury he has suffered, if his state of health so permits. The employer is obliged to register a workplace injury that has caused the employee's incapacity for work lasting more than three days, or the employee's death resulting from the workplace injury, by drawing up a record of the registered workplace injury no later than four (4) days after being notified of the occurrence of the workplace injury. In this connection, we note that the entitlement to compensation for a workplace injury naturally does not depend on whether or not the employee reports the injury, nor on whether or not a record of the injury was drawn up. The fact that a workplace injury occurred can also be proven by the testimony of co-workers and third parties.
Compensation of damage to an employee who has suffered a workplace injury consists of individual partial claims which, depending on the severity of the injury's consequences, may all be awarded or only some of them. To the extent that the employer is liable to the employee for damage arising from a workplace injury, the employer is obliged to provide the employee with compensation for loss of earnings during the period of incapacity for work and after its end, compensation for pain and for the impairment of social functioning, the reasonably incurred costs associated with treatment, and material damage.
Example
At sports games organised by the employer on 25 – 26 June 2011, an employee suffered a "workplace injury". On 5 July 2007 the employee requested termination of the employment relationship by agreement on health grounds and at the same time submitted to the employer a certificate of incapacity for work, which lasted until 9 December 2011. The employment relationship ended on 6 September 2011.
The employer proceeded towards the employee in accordance with the applicable legislation and, for the days of incapacity for work on 5 September 2011 and 6 September 2011, paid him income compensation amounting to 25% of the assessment base. Income compensation was paid to the employee for only two (2) days, since on 6 September 2011 the employee terminated the employment relationship with the employer by agreement. For the remaining days of incapacity for work, the Social Insurance Agency paid the employee sickness benefit amounting to 55% of the assessment base. On 2 September 2011 the employee requested the employer to compensate the lost wages caused by the injury at the sports games.
Conclusion
Sports games organised by the employer are voluntary and have no direct or indirect connection with the content of the employee's work, with the performance of the employee's work tasks, or any direct connection with the performance of work tasks. The employee signed up for the sports games voluntarily, the employer did not order his participation as part of the performance of his work tasks, and he chose the game in which he suffered the alleged "workplace injury" himself, voluntarily.
At the same time, the employee did not prove to the employer the preconditions for the arising of liability, namely a workplace injury, damage arising on his part, and a causal link between the workplace injury and the damage on his part.
Further, I would express my view that the case described above cannot constitute a workplace injury, since under Section § 195(2) of the Labour Code "a workplace injury is damage to health caused to an employee in the performance of work tasks or in direct connection therewith, independently of the employee's will, by the short-term, sudden and violent action of external factors".
In my opinion, the employer proceeded in the employee's case in accordance with the applicable legislation and has no obligations or liability towards the employee, since the employee caused the injury himself during a game he had voluntarily chosen and not in the performance of work tasks.