The Supreme Court has overturned a ruling by the Madrid High Court of Justice (TSJM) and has recognized that the myocardial infarction that caused the death of a teleworker with flexible hours at her home was a work accident. The TSJM did not consider it proven that the employee was working at the time of death, something the high court does consider proven.
Read more Chess analysis | Erdogmus, 14, slips against Carlsen in their first slow game
The judges of the Social Chamber emphasize that the company was responsible for proving that the employee was not working, and that the family should not bear the burden of proof. In this case, they state, the presumption of work-relatedness under article 156.3 of the General Social Security Law applies, which states that “it shall be presumed, unless proven otherwise, that injuries suffered by the worker during working time and at the workplace constitute work accidents.”
The employee worked as a senior administrative technician, with seniority in the company since 2010. Her winter schedule was 42 and a half hours, and she worked remotely on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from her home in Madrid, with flexible hours between 9:00 and 19:00. Within this schedule, she had one hour for lunch, which was not fixed. On February 21, 2022, the employee was found dead at her home around 20:00. The autopsy certified that she suffered a cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction at 15:00. Additionally, it was determined that the worker had no significant prior heart injuries and had an empty stomach.
This element, as considered by the Social Court number 33 of Madrid in the first instance and now ratified by the Supreme Court, is “an indication that she had not yet eaten and, therefore, could have been working.” And indeed, the high court assures that “there is no evidence that the plaintiff was resting when she suffered the infarction.” Furthermore, the judges recall that nothing prevents this presumption of work-relatedness from applying to those who work remotely, except as determined by the legislator.
Read more Barcelona libraries call a strike: “We are far from reaching an agreement”
Another “decisive” element leading to the correction of the previous ruling is the schedule, notes the Supreme Court. Firstly, the judges highlight that those who work under this modality “are subject to the same working hours regime as employees who provide services at the company’s premises.” Additionally, they recall that when the company establishes the physical space, which in this case is the home, and the working hours are online, it is the company that must bear the burden of proof, as it can use electronic or computer means that require time control. In this case, the ruling highlights that “no detailed time record was provided” and the company did not provide “the activity control document.”
The company did present the time record in previous instances, but the Supreme Court judges state that “there is no evidence that the worker had started a rest period (including the lunch break) at 15:00 nor that she had finished her workday before that time.” In this case, the working time “has an imprecise outline” that cannot be held against the teleworking employee, the ruling recalls.
With these arguments, the high court concludes that the TSJM ruling “improperly shifts the burden of proof of the qualified basic fact regarding working time onto the worker.” It adds that “there are solid and conclusive indications that demonstrate that the death occurred during working time.”
