Whether the Manager’s Injury by Trying to Stop his Colleagues from Fighting each other in the After-work Team Building Party could be Ascertained as Work-related Injury?

★Nutshell

Mr Yang joined a catering management company in Shanghai as a store manager since June 1, 2017. His working time is from 9:00 to 21:00.

On August 12, 2017, Mr Yang organized an after-work team building party immediately after the restaurant closed to reward all of his colleagues. And this party has been approved in advance by the leader of the catering company management.

At about 22:21, two clerks bursted into a flaming quarrel and had a physical conflict in the burning fury.

As their manager, Mr Yang hurried to stop them from fighting each other. But unexpectedly, the two drunk clerks were too angry to be stopped, and started to brandish the wine bottle. Mr Yang can’t dodge! The bottle hit him on the middle of his face and that led to a fracture of his nasal bone.

Afterwards, the company required Mr Yang to sign a letter of commitment. The general content is that his injury has no relation to the company and he would voluntarily bear the responsibility by his own.

A few weeks later, Mr Yang complained to his lawyer friend about his injury.

His friend told him that his injury should be ascertained as work-related injury.

Therefore, Mr Yang claimed to the social insurance administrative department to require the ascertainment of the work-related injury。

Eventually, the social insurance administrative department ascertained Mr Yang’s injury as work-related injury.

But the catering management company refused to accept the conclusion and then raised an administrative litigation.

 

★Issue

The issues of this case are:

1. Whether the injury happened in the after-work team building party and caused by stopping fight could be ascertained as work-related injury?
2. Does the letter of commitment signed by Mr Yang effective?

The company holds that Mr Yang’s injury happened during the closing time and coursed by accident. And he has expressed in the letter of commitment that his injury has no relationship with the company and he would voluntarily take responsibility by his own.

Mr Yang thinks that it is his job responsibility to stop the fight because he was appointed as the organizer of the party. Besides, the signature on the letter of commitment isn’t his own intention. He was forced by the company.

 

★Judgement

The court holds that the participants of that party were all employees of the company, the venue and materials for the party are all from the company, the organization of the party is approved by the leader of the company in advance, and the purpose of holding the party is also to reward the employees of the company.

So, as the store manager and the party organizer, Mr Yang’s trying to stop his colleagues from fighting each other has a causal relationship with his working duty. So his behavior should be regarded as the extension of his job. Therefore, his injury should be ascertained as work-related injury.

What’s more, the letter of the commitment was printed by the company in advance. And what Mr Yang was suppoesd to do is just to sign it.

The letter prevented the company from significant risks and Mr Yang denied the signature on the letter is his own intention. So the content of the letter is not accepted by the court.

 

★Comment by Lawyer Tang

The article 14 of the Regulation on Work-Related Injury Insurance indicates that “An employee shall be ascertained to have suffered from work-related injury if: 1.he is injured from an accident within the working hours and the working place due to his work”.

So, whether Mr Yang’s injury could be ascertained as work-related injury depends on the above-mentioned “3 work”(“working hours”, “working place” and “due to work”) regulation.

First of all, the after-work team building party was held immediately after the work time. As the store manager, Mr Yang held the party on behalf of the company which had been approved in advance by the company leader. It means the party was hold in the extension of working hours and meets the requirement of “working hours”.

Secondly, the league building party was hold in the store, which meets the requirement of “working place”.

The third and one of the issues of this case is whether mediating the fighting parties meets the requirement of “due to work”.

Although the “due to work” regulation has not been explained exactly in the laws and the regulations, but it should be generally interpreted as a causal relationship between the injury and the working duty.

Mr Yang, as the store manager, the party organizer, ought to fulfill the obligation of safety and security. Therefore, his mediating behavior has a causal relationship with the working duty.

In addition, the company also said that Mr Yang’s injury is a personal infringement. He could require the attackers to compensate. Therefore, for the sake of fairness, his injury shouldn’t be ascertained as work-related injury to get double compensation.

There is no doubt that such statement is wrong.

The article 14 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury indicates that “Where the tort caused by a third person outside the employer results in an injury, he shall bear the compensation liabilities. And when the obligee to compensation claims against the obligor for bearing corresponding compensation liabilities, the people’s court shall support such claim.”

Hence, there is no conflict between Mr Yang’s claim of work-related injury compensation and his right to obtain civil tort compensation.