An accident at lunchtime outside the premises of the enterprise. Accident on the way to work, from work, at lunchtime

I was offered a job in a commercial organization as a chief accountant, but with the condition that the official salary would be at the level of the minimum wage, and I would receive the rest in an envelope. Is it right? Labor Code of the Russian Federation - Of course not. Not only does the salary in envelopes deprive the budget and off-budget funds of a significant share of revenues, it also reduces the amount of various social benefits (pensions, benefits for pregnancy and childbirth, child care, sick leave). In addition, another thing is also obvious: when paying salaries to highly qualified specialists at the minimum wage level, the requirements of labor legislation on its dependence on the qualifications and complexity of the duties performed are violated. After all, working as a chief accountant requires professional special education and experience.

Industrial injury at lunch break (smoke break)

Article 108 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides employees with other breaks - breaks for rest and meals, which are not included in working hours. This break implies the absence of an employee on the territory of the organization.

Attention

Such a break is considered to be a time of rest for the employee, during which the employee is free from performing his duties. Therefore, an accident that happened to your employee during a lunch break cannot be qualified as an industrial accident and must be filed as a domestic injury.

Yu. Koryakina, lawyer, occupational safety specialist, HR manager at Biogard November 1, 2006

Error 404

Conversely, if a person was injured during a regulated break in a place specially designated for smoking, then such an injury is recognized as a work injury. Another situation. The employee was driving to work in the employer's transport and was injured.
Such an injury is considered work-related. The same will be the injury that was received while driving a personal car if:

the car was used at the order of the employer, and this is enshrined in the employment contract, because the work is of a traveling nature.
there is an order of the head of the organization;
the accounting department has a certified copy of the vehicle registration certificate;
the organization keeps records of the employee's business trips in a personal car, there are waybills.

Work injury or accident at work

Moreover, in case of any injury, disability is paid from the first day. The only difference is that since this injury is taken into account as a work injury, then, regardless of the continuous length of service, payment is 100%.

Why deprive the employee? Submit all documents to the FSS and all business. #5 IP/Host: 81.195.220. Re: Injury during a lunch break The problem is that, as far as I understand: 1.

we immediately had to “send a message to the bodies and organizations defined by this Code and other regulatory legal acts”, which was not done2. There is a note on the sick leave - an injury at work, but then can the commission recognize it as non-production? I got confused ...
#6 IP/Host: 212.176.14. Re: Injury during a lunch break Well for what not at once will not kill. There probably won't even be a penalty.

Injury at lunchtime

Important

Info

In all other situations, injuries received by an employee during working hours outside the organization are not considered an accident at work. An injury that an employee received on the territory of the organization during non-working hours can be recognized as an industrial accident if it is established that the employee at that moment was performing duties under an employment contract.

Articles and consultations on the website www.kadrovik-praktik.ru

Therefore, an injury received by an employee can be considered work-related in two main ways:

It was received at the workplace, during a business trip, on the way to work or returning from work on official vehicles.
In order for an injury to be considered work-related, the employee had to fulfill his official duties under an employment contract and at the direction of the employer.

There are some complex points that cannot be unambiguously interpreted. For example, what to do if an injury is received during a corporate party. It will be domestic trauma. Since the employee was injured outside of working hours, in addition, they did not perform work duties, so this is not an industrial injury. These incidents do not apply to production. next case.

The injury occurred during a lunch or smoking break.

It's better not to get injured at lunch...

On the one hand, the employee may be in a specially designated smoking area, which is located on the territory of the employer and belongs to him. If an employee, for example, slips on the floor in a smoking room and breaks his leg, then this can be considered an occupational injury, since a slippery floor is an oversight of the employer (responsible persons).

On the other hand, the employee went out for a smoke break during working hours; the PVTR does not provide for other breaks, except for lunch. Accordingly, the employee did not perform direct work duties, his actions will not be considered an accident during the lunch break. Such examples are very common in practice and accident commissions in almost identical situations make opposite decisions.

Re: Re: Re: Lunch break injury yes, but the main point is the performance of work duties or work on behalf of the organization or in its interests. In this case, it is necessary to carefully investigate the n / s.

If the supply manager went to the store for production purposes, then another question, but if a worker ran to the store to buy sausages, then I'm sorry, the company does not transfer money to the FSS for this. #11 IP/Host: 83.167.29. Re: Injury during lunch break From: Alexey Date: 14-04-2006 03:58 yes, but the main point is the performance of work duties or work on behalf of the organization or in its interests. Disagree. Regarding the fulfillment of duties - subparagraph "a" Regarding breaks in work - subparagraph "b". These paragraphs are equivalent. Read carefully.

Injury during lunch break

Re: Injury during a lunch break and accounting are subject to n / s that occurred: - in the direct performance of labor duties or work on the instructions of the employer, in the performance of other lawful actions in the interests of the employer, etc., etc. Going to the court shop is not suitable. When contacting the FSS, this n / s, if the enterprise connects it with production, will most likely be appealed in court # 9 IP / Host: 83.167.29.

The Labor Code establishes that an industrial injury can be received not only at the workplace during strictly allotted working hours, but also in some other cases when the employee performed his functions on behalf of the manager or in accordance with established rules (for example, was on a business trip or moved on official cars for production purposes) Lunch break What if the accident occurred during the lunch break? Article 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation indicates that an industrial injury, among other things, is an accident during working hours on the territory of the employer, including during the provided breaks, the performance of other stipulated by the internal labor regulations (hereinafter - PWTR) when performing work.

Good day! Larisa, according to article 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Accidents Subject to Investigation and Recording Accidents that have occurred with employees and other persons participating in the production activities of the employer (including persons subject to compulsory social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases) are subject to investigation and record in accordance with this chapter. ), when they perform their labor duties or perform any work on behalf of the employer (his representative), as well as when performing other lawful actions due to labor relations with the employer or performed in his interests.

In enterprises (workplaces) where, due to the peculiarities of operation, it is impossible to establish a lunch break, the employer is obliged to provide the employee with the opportunity to eat during working hours. If in this case the worker is injured while eating, the incident will also be classified as a work injury at lunchtime.

Accident during a smoke break In most businesses, there is an unspoken rule during working hours. The federal law does not answer whether an industrial injury during a lunch break (smoke break) will be considered as such if it did not occur at the set time. This issue should be provided for in the PWTR and other internal documents, but in practice there is a twofold situation.

PWTR is an internal local act, each individual enterprise has its own document, since it establishes all the features of the organization's work, including time, duration and other nuances regarding the lunch break. In addition to the PWTR, the lunch break schedule can be established individually with the employee when concluding an employment contract or contract. An injury at work during a lunch break is considered an injury if an employee:

was at work
was in the company
was in the cafeteria owned by the employer
was heading to the canteen on the territory owned by the employer

As for the canteen, the poisoning in this case will also be classified as an occupational injury if it was received as a result of poor-quality food that was served in the canteen at the enterprise.

Error 404

Info

Injury at lunchtime

Important

What is the order here? – According to Art. 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an accident at work is understood as an event as a result of which a person was injured or otherwise injured in the performance of duties under an employment contract (contract) both on the territory of the employer and outside it, or while traveling to the place of work (or return) on the transport provided by the employer, and which entailed the need to transfer the employee to another job, temporary or permanent loss of his professional ability to work, or his death. A break during the working day (shift) is a rest time.

During this period, the employee is free from the performance of labor duties, and he can use it at his own discretion. In this case, the injury occurred just during a lunch break that was not included in working hours.

Industrial injury at lunch break (smoke break)

Attention

If the employee could prove that, even while being outside the enterprise at lunchtime, he was fulfilling the employer’s production assignment (based on the official assignment for a business trip, local business trip log, management order, job duties, etc.), such an accident would be considered production and drawn up by an act in the form of H-1. The claims of the employee, apparently, are connected with the incorrect and often still encountered opinion that the injury that occurred on the way to and from work is also registered in the report on an accident at work, i.e.

e. outside the territory of the enterprise. Such a provision did once exist, but was abolished quite a long time ago. T.

It's better not to get injured at lunch...

Investigation in the prescribed manner as accidents shall also be the events specified in part three of this article, if they occurred with persons involved in the prescribed manner to participate in the work to prevent a catastrophe, accident or other emergency or in the work to eliminate their consequences. Based on the foregoing, I believe that in your case, the injury should be considered as a work injury, since it was received: ... during working hours on the employer’s territory or in another place of work, including during established breaks.

Lunch is a break based on the meaning of Art. 108 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. I wish you good luck and all the best! I would be grateful for your feedback.

How do I get paid sick leave if I break my leg during my lunch break?

Re: Re: Injury during a lunch break From: Alexey Date: 12-04-2006 04:16 ”(Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of October 24, 2002 No. 73) “N / s that have occurred are subject to investigation and accounting: - in the direct performance of work duties or work on the instructions of the employer, in the commission of other lawful actions in the interests of the employer, etc. etc. .P. Going to the court shop is not suitable. And then we read: “... on the territory of the organization, other objects and areas assigned to the organization on the basis of ownership or lease (hereinafter referred to as the territory of the organization), or in ANOTHER PLACE of work during working hours (including the established BREAKS), including during following to the workplace (from the workplace), ...

#10 IP/Host: 195.46.102.
The hospital has long presented? The Labor Protection Inspectorate does not act atrociously on such injuries. And correct it in your documents. Your case is more related to the FSS.
Coordinate all documents with them. A certificate of severity of injury in the prescribed form is also required. Do you have it? #7 IP/Host: 195.46.102. Re: Injury during lunch break I had a case in practice.

Two tractor drivers dined in the tractor on parental day, naturally they took on their chests for the repose of their departed relatives. After the meal, one tractor driver stood on the roof of the bulldozer to relieve himself, but the green snake did its job and shook the tractor driver, he fell off the tractor and later died.

This accident was recognized by the court as a production accident. #8 IP/Host: 195.46.102.

Broke my leg on my lunch break

List of IP/Host messages: 81.195.220. Injury during the lunch break Good day to all! A question arose: An employee, during the lunch break established in the organization, went to the store, slipped, fell - injury. In accordance with Art. 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, injuries received ': during working hours on the territory of the organization or outside it (including during established breaks):' are investigated and are subject to registration as industrial accidents. I climbed on the forum and the Internet, found two points of view - some believe that the injury is considered to be received at work, others do not. Share your opinions and doubts, colleagues. Need urgently, only with justification and links to legal acts. Thanks to everyone #1 IP/Host: 83.167.29.

Re: Injury during a lunch break You mine and answered. Work injury. #2 IP/Host: 212.176.14.
Our worker broke his leg during his lunch break. Please answer whether such an injury can be considered an industrial injury or is it still a domestic injury.

The list of accidents that occurred at work and are subject to investigation and accounting is given in article 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. These include injuries that occur to employees during working hours, including scheduled breaks.

And in order to answer your question, it is necessary to understand what kind of breaks are included in the concept of "established". For certain types of work, Article 109 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for special breaks for heating and rest, which are included in working hours.

Such breaks, as a rule, take place in specially equipped premises on the territory of the organization. These breaks are actually a continuation and an integral part of the production process.

Re: Lunch Break Injury No, it's certainly not an industrial accident. But according to the same article 227, an injury received during the established break is investigated and accounted for as an accident at work. So do not take your time to draw up documents.

#3 IP/Host: 81.195.220. Re: Injury during a lunch break He himself answered, yes, this is all sad: a person received an injury a month ago, the commission investigated everything, drew up an act that the injury was not industrial, and for Gene's signature. And he take it, and ask (at the very end) “what will our lawyer say? ...” And now the lawyer clears up and invents so that it is not considered an industrial injury ..
🙁 #4 IP/Host: 212.176.14. Re: Lunch Break Injury It really is not industrial, but simply investigated and accounted for as industrial.
The Labor Code establishes that an industrial injury can be received not only at the workplace during strictly allotted working hours, but also in some other cases when the employee performed his functions on behalf of the manager or in accordance with established rules (for example, was on a business trip or moved on official cars for production purposes) Lunch break What if the accident occurred during the lunch break? Article 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation indicates that an industrial injury, among other things, is an accident during working hours on the territory of the employer, including during the provided breaks, the performance of other stipulated by the internal labor regulations (hereinafter - PWTR) when performing work.

Is it right to qualify it as an “accident at work”, given that at the time of the incident the employee was not performing his job duties? Is a payment made for a period of temporary disability if the victim himself is to blame for the incident? What is the employer's responsibility for an accident?

What is the employer's responsibility for an accident?

ACCIDENTS DURING THE BREAK FOR
RECREATION AND FOOD

QUESTION:

An employee during a lunch break, in order to ventilate the room, opened the outer door of a mobile domestic trailer and stood in the doorway, holding on to the racks of the box (jambs). The door was suddenly slammed by a gust of wind, as a result, the worker injured three fingers of his right hand. The employee did not inform the foreman about the incident, and at the end of the shift, he turned to the clinic at the place of residence, where he was issued a certificate of incapacity for work, which indicated the type of disability - “accident at work”. The employer became aware of the accident after the employee presented a disability certificate for payment.

What is the procedure for investigating and filing this accident? Is it right to qualify it as an “accident at work”, given that at the time of the incident the employee was not performing his job duties? Is a payment made for a period of temporary disability if the victim himself is to blame for the incident? What is the employer's responsibility for an accident?

ANSWER:

According to part 2 of Art. 229.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an accident that was not reported to the employer in a timely manner or as a result of which the victim’s incapacity for work did not occur immediately is investigated in the manner established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 227-231), other federal laws and other regulatory legal acts Russian Federation at the request of the victim or his authorized representative within one month from the date of receipt of the said application. In my opinion, the presentation for payment of a certificate of incapacity for work, which indicates the type of disability “accident at work”, should be considered as untimely notification of the employer about the accident, therefore, its investigation is carried out on the basis of the statement of the victim.

This accident is classified as light. Therefore, when a statement is received from the victim or the employer himself learns about the incident, in order to investigate the accident, he - in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 229 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation - forms a commission of at least three people, which includes: a labor protection specialist or a person appointed responsible for organizing work on labor protection by order (instruction) of the employer; employer representatives; representatives of the elected body of the primary trade union organization or other representative body of workers; Commissioner for labor protection. The commission is headed by the employer or his representative. The composition of the commission is approved by the order (instruction) of the employer. Persons who are directly responsible for ensuring compliance with labor protection requirements at the site (facility) where the accident occurred are not included in the commission. Each victim, his legal representative or other authorized person has the right to personal participation in the investigation of the accident.

The victim is obliged to submit a detailed explanation to the commission. It indicates why the employer was not informed about the incident in a timely manner, the circumstances of the incident are stated, eyewitnesses are named, etc. would like to receive answers and arrange them in the form of a survey protocol. If the victim does not answer any question, note this in the protocol, explaining to him: refusal to cooperate with the commission for an objective investigation of the accident that happened to him may affect the conclusions of the commission, and not in his favor.

Witnesses named as victims should be interviewed in detail on pre-prepared questions. If necessary, ask the eyewitness to show directly at the scene where the victim was, the eyewitness himself and other persons. When this is not possible, show the scene of the incident on a diagram drawn up from the words of an eyewitness, and then, by means of comparison, verify the accuracy of the information received and the absence of perjury.

The victim should not be in the role of an observer, but actively assist the commission in the investigation. If it is not possible to confirm the facts he mentioned, this is the problem of the victim himself, especially if his belated appeal cannot be recognized as respectful.

The issue of qualifying an accident (if the commission establishes the fact of its occurrence) is resolved after a comprehensive check of the circumstances, taking into account the explanations of the victim and eyewitnesses, as well as certificates from the medical organization about the possible causes, time and nature of the injury, which is sometimes crucial .

The investigation of an accident, if it actually occurred in accordance with the circumstances set forth in the statement or explanation of the victim, as a rule, ends with the drawing up of an act of form H-1. This is the general procedure for investigating an accident that was not reported to the employer in a timely manner, including one that happened to an employee during a lunch break in the doorway of a utility room.

Article 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as the main qualifying feature that determines the obligation to investigate accidents occurring with employees, establishes the performance by them of labor duties or the performance of any work on behalf of the employer (his representative), as well as the implementation of other lawful actions due to labor relations with the employer or committed in his interests.

Along with actions directly related to the performance by the injured person of the labor function determined by the employment contract, lawful actions due to labor relations with the employer are the actions of the employee related to the use of sanitary facilities, including during break for rest and meals.

Thus, an accident that occurred to an employee during a lunch break in the doorway of a utility room is qualified as an accident at work and is documented by an act of form H-1. The presence of guilt of the victim in the incident (if it is established by the commission) does not affect the qualification of the accident. Each accident at work is due to specific violations of labor protection rules, therefore, there are specific persons who committed these violations. The duty of the accident investigation commission is to establish them.

When investigating an accident that occurred to an employee in the doorway of a utility room, determine what measures should have been taken to prevent a sudden slamming of the door from sudden gusts of wind: install wind hooks that fix the door in the open position (similar to window hooks) , fix plates with appropriate inscriptions on the door leaf, etc. A comprehensive investigation into the circumstances and causes of the accident will make it possible to identify officials whose actions (inaction) caused the accident.

It seems that based on the materials of the investigation of this accident, a criminal case will not be initiated and the officials named by the commission will not be held criminally liable. In my opinion, they should be brought to disciplinary or administrative responsibility.

If the necessary measures to prevent the door from slamming due to sudden gusts of wind have been taken by the employer, he may be released from liability. In this case, in clause 10 of the act of form H-1, the person who committed the violation of labor protection requirements should indicate the victim himself. According to Art. 5 of Federal Law No. 125-FZ, an injured person working on the basis of an employment contract is insured, and an accident at work with him is an insured event (part 7 of article 229.2 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Article 9 of this law establishes that the temporary disability benefit due to an accident at work is paid for the entire period of temporary disability of the insured until his recovery or the establishment of a permanent loss of professional ability to work in the amount of 100% of his average earnings, calculated in in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on temporary disability benefits. This article does not provide for a reduction in the amount or deprivation of benefits in connection with the guilt of the victim in the occurrence of an accident.

QUESTION:

The employer entered into an agreement with the director of a cafe located near his territory on the organization of catering for employees. The contract determined: the time of lunch; the number of employees who will eat in the cafe; priority service for employees at the time specified in the contract; compensation by the employer of part of the cost of a set lunch. In a cafe during lunch, an unreliably fastened chandelier fell on the head of one of the workers. With a head injury in an ambulance, the victim was taken to the hospital, where he was provided with medical assistance and issued a certificate of incapacity for work, which indicated the cause of incapacity for work as “accident at work”. Is it legitimate to qualify this accident as an accident at work?

ANSWER:

The cause of incapacity for work "accident at work", indicated in the certificate of incapacity for work, is not the basis for qualifying an accident that occurred to the employee, since at the time of his request for medical help (if he applied in a timely manner), the investigation of the injury case is, as a rule, at the stage of organization. In this case, the type of disability is usually indicated “according to the victim”. The decision to qualify an accident is made by the commission that conducted its investigation (part 5 of article 229.2 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Let's approach the qualification of this accident on the basis of formal signs: an accident with an employee occurred outside the territory of the organization, during a lunch break that is not included in working hours and is not paid. There are conditions under which it belongs to the category of non-production injuries.

At the same time, the employer was obliged to provide sanitary and household services for employees, including the organization of their meals or the provision of equipped premises for eating (Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Therefore, visiting a cafe with which a contract has been concluded for servicing employees of an organization under certain conditions, in this case cannot be considered as the right of an employee to use the lunch break at his own discretion and equate it, for example, with visiting a store. Catering in a cafe is organized by the employer, so an employee visiting it is a legitimate action, due to labor relations with the employer. An accident that occurred to an employee in a cafe during a meal must be investigated in the manner prescribed by Articles 227-231 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, qualified as a non-accident at work and drawn up with an act of form H-1. Here, the cafe should be considered as a premises, which, although not owned by the employer, but according to the agreement with the owner of the cafe, is provided to the employees of the organization for eating.

An accident with an employee that occurred in a cafe during a meal is investigated by a commission formed by the employer for whom the victim works on the basis of an employment contract (part 6 of article 229 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If necessary, the owner of the cafe participates in the work of the commission.

This accident, qualified as a non-accident at work and drawn up by act H-1, is insurance, as it occurred with an employee subject to compulsory social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases (when working under an employment contract) . The temporary disability benefit for the affected employee is paid in the amount of 100% of his average earnings (Article 9 of Federal Law No. 125-FZ).

If the employee, at his own discretion, chose another public catering enterprise during the lunch break, the accident that happened to him under similar circumstances is not an accident at work and, accordingly, is not documented by an act of form H-1. The temporary disability benefit is paid on the basis of Federal Law No. 255-FZ as in case of a non-productive injury. Its size depends on the length of service of the injured worker.

QUESTION:

An employee during a lunch break went to visit a sick relative who lives near the organization. Half an hour later, returning from him to the place of work, he slipped on the icy sidewalk - and fell, having injured his leg "a closed fracture of the lower leg with displacement." How to qualify this accident?

ANSWER:

According to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee during a working day (shift) must be provided with a break for rest and food (lunch break) lasting no more than two hours and at least 30 minutes, which is not included in working hours. The employee can use it at discretion, including going outside the territory of the employer. The time of the break and its duration are established by the internal labor regulations of the organization or by agreement between the employee and the employer.

If an employee, for any reason, during a break for rest and food, performed his labor duties (for example, participated in unloading a vehicle, etc.) or performed a one-time task of the employer, an accident that occurred to him under these circumstances, qualifies as an accident at work and is issued an act of form H-1. If an employee used the break at his own discretion and left the territory of the organization, the injury (or death) received by him outside of its limits is not an accident at work. At the same time, if an accident happened to him while walking through the territory of the organization (even at lunchtime), he qualifies as an accident at work (following the territory of the organization to the workplace or to the sanitary facilities is a lawful action due to labor relations with the employer).

Sometimes to visit (visit) a sick colleague, including at lunchtime, one of the members of the team is instructed by the immediate supervisor (foreman, mechanic, shift supervisor, etc.). I myself had to carry out this assignment more than once: the members of the brigade do not have time to visit a sick comrade. An accident that occurred on the route on the instructions (assignments) of the immediate supervisor, including during a lunch break outside the organization, qualifies as an accident at work and is documented by an act of form H-1.

Based on the foregoing, an accident that occurred to an employee outside the organization’s territory during a lunch break on the way to the place of work after visiting - on his own initiative - his sick relative, is not an accident at work.

The regulation on the procedure for providing benefits for state social insurance, approved by the resolution of the Presidium of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions of November 12, 1984 No. 13-6, became invalid on January 1, 2007 due to the entry into force of Federal Law No. 255-FZ. Consequently, paragraph 106 of the Regulations, which establishes that temporary disability is considered to have occurred as a result of an industrial injury, has become invalid if an accident with an employee occurred on the way to work, including during a lunch break, or from work. The temporary disability benefit in this case is paid on a general basis (depending on the length of service).

According to Federal Law No. 255-FZ, the type of injury and the place where it occurred does not matter, since the conditions, amounts and procedure for providing temporary disability benefits in case of various injuries (with the exception of those that occurred as a result of an accident at work) are the same. Therefore, there was no need to conduct an investigation of non-productive injuries and draw up acts. Now it is enough to write in the disability certificate about the cause of disability, for example: injury, injury on the way from work, injury at home, etc.

WORKER ACCIDENT
AS A RESULT OF THE FIGHT

QUESTION:

As a result of a fight that took place between employees on the territory of the organization during working hours, one of them was injured - a broken nose. Is this incident an industrial accident? Who compensates for the moral damage caused to the victim as a result of damage to health?

ANSWER:

For a correct answer to the question, it is necessary to refer to the legal norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation that regulate the procedure for investigating accidents that have occurred to employees (Articles 227-231).

According to Part 1 of Art. 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, accidents that occurred with employees and other persons participating in the production activities of the employer (including persons subject to compulsory social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases) are subject to investigation and accounting, performance of their labor duties or performance of any work on behalf of the employer (his representative), as well as in the implementation of other lawful actions due to labor relations with the employer, or performed in his interests.

Subject to the conditions, in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 227 Investigation in the prescribed manner as accidents are subject to events as a result of which the victims received: bodily injuries (injuries), including those inflicted by another person (for example, as a result of a fight), which entailed the need to transfer the victims to another work, temporary or permanent disability or death of the injured, if these events occurred during working hours on the territory of the employer or in another place of work, including during the established breaks, as well as during the time, necessary to put in order the tools of production and clothing, perform other actions provided for by the internal labor regulations before the start and after the end of work, as well as when performing work outside the working hours established for the employee, on weekends and non-working holidays - day days.

Thus, an accident that occurred with an employee as a result of a fight at work is subject to unconditional investigation in the manner established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, even if the actions of the victim himself fall under the category of actions qualified by law enforcement agencies as a criminally punishable act. All cases of infliction of bodily harm by others as a result of a fight at work or the deliberate killing of an employee in the performance of his labor duties, the employer is obliged to report to law enforcement agencies, which are conducting their investigation. The investigation of the accident is carried out by a commission headed by the employer, the composition of which is formed in accordance with Part. 1 and 2 Art. 229 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The commission inspects the scene of the incident, identifies and interrogates eyewitnesses of the accident and officials whose explanations may be necessary, receives other information and an explanation from the victim on the merits of the incident (if he is able to do so).

Based on the collected materials of the investigation (their list is given in part 3 of article 229.2 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), including the conclusion of law enforcement agencies on the qualification of the actions of the victim and other workers involved in the fight, the commission:

establishes the circumstances and causes of the accident, as well as persons who committed violations of labor protection requirements;
determines whether the actions (inaction) of the victim at the time of the accident were due to labor relations with the employer or participation in his production activities;
qualifies an accident as an accident at work or as an accident not related to production.

It should be especially emphasized that the decision to qualify an accident that occurred to an employee as a result of a fight at work should be made after receiving an official resolution (decision) from law enforcement agencies on the qualification of the actions of the victim. The commission should not replace law enforcement agencies, but act within the limits of its powers.

Commissions sometimes independently decide on the qualification of the actions of the victim (lawful, unlawful) as a result of a fight at work. This happens when the employer does not promptly report the incident to law enforcement agencies or when their representatives for some reason did not investigate it. In my opinion, such actions of the employer and the commission can only be justified by the evidence of the absence of unlawful actions on the part of the victim when causing damage to his health by other persons.

It is unacceptable to create additional problems for an innocent employee, primarily related to the timely payment of temporary disability benefits. Nevertheless, the decision (conclusion) of law enforcement agencies, qualifying the actions of the persons participating in the fight, must be received by the employer (chairman of the commission) within the established time limits and attached to the investigation materials.

By decision of the commission, depending on the specific circumstances, an accident that occurred when the victim committed actions (inaction) qualified by law enforcement agencies as a criminally punishable act can be qualified as an accident not related to production. At the same time, one should proceed from the fact that the qualification of an accident as an accident not related to production is an exception rather than a mandatory norm.

If the injured employee is a victim (not the instigator of a fight), at the time of its occurrence he performed his labor duties or carried out lawful actions due to labor relations with the employer, the accident - subject to the decision (decision) of law enforcement agencies - can be qualified by the commission as an accident at work and is issued by an act of the form H-1. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage to an employee who has suffered as a result of a fight at work is carried out in court by the tortfeasor (Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The persons who committed the offense that caused the accident are established by the commission for its investigation on the basis of the conclusion (decree) of law enforcement agencies and are indicated in the act of form H-1.

ON COMPENSATION FOR MORAL DAMAGE

QUESTION:

In the office of the organization, while walking to the workplace, the employee stumbled, fell, hit the corner of the table - and injured her cheek, knocked out a tooth. The employer formed a commission of inquiry, which established the circumstances and causes of the accident classified as light, qualified it as an accident at work, and issued an act of form H-1. RO FSS RF recognized it as an insured event. The employer paid the cost of prosthetics. In addition, the worker turned to him with a statement about compensation for non-pecuniary damage. What should the employer do in this case? Does he have the right to refuse an employee compensation for moral damages? Is there a methodology for calculating the amount of compensation that is mandatory for use by the plaintiff, the tortfeasor and the court?

ANSWER:

Moral harm is understood as moral or physical suffering caused by actions (inaction) that encroach on intangible benefits belonging to a citizen from birth or by virtue of law (life, health, personal dignity, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets). and so on.). Moral harm, in particular, may consist in moral feelings in connection with the loss of loved ones, the inability to continue an active social life, loss of work, physical pain associated with injury, other damage to health, or in connection with a disease transferred to the result of moral suffering, etc.

The statute of limitations does not apply to claims for compensation for moral damage, since they arise from the violation of personal non-property rights and other intangible benefits. The procedure for compensation for harm caused to the life or health of an employee in the performance of his duties under an employment contract is established by Federal Law No. 125-FZ: payment of insurance compensation for harm (insurance security) is carried out by the FSS of the Russian Federation (its regional branches).

However, according to paragraph 3 of Art. 8 of Federal Law No. 125-FZ and Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, compensation for moral harm caused to the health of the victim as a result of an accident at work is carried out by the tortfeasor (and not the FSS of the Russian Federation), which does not have to be an employer. The latter is not responsible for the fact of an accident at work, but for the actions (inaction) that led to the accident. The responsibility of the employer is established on the basis of the conclusions of the commission on the circumstances and causes of the accident, as well as on the persons who violated labor protection requirements. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is carried out in cash.

In accordance with Art. 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, compensation for moral damage is carried out regardless of the fault of the tortfeasor in cases where the harm was caused to the life or health of a citizen by a source of increased danger. Article 1079 refers to the owners of a source of increased danger legal entities and citizens whose activities are associated with increased danger to others (use of vehicles, mechanisms, high voltage electrical energy, nuclear energy, explosives, potent poisons, etc.; implementation construction and other related activities, etc.). In the case of a worker, harm to her health was caused by an object (table) that is not a source of increased danger. Consequently, the employer will be liable for moral harm caused to the employee only if he is at fault in the incident.

The employer has the right to refuse to satisfy the employee's claims for compensation for moral harm, if he believes that the harm was caused through no fault of his, thus initiating her filing a lawsuit against the tortfeasor. The application of the victim for compensation for moral damage by his tortfeasor is considered in court. Amounts paid by a court decision in compensation for moral damages are not taxed. The specified income tax relief is not applied in the case of voluntary (out-of-court) compensation for non-pecuniary damage by its inflictor.

For claims for compensation for moral damage caused to the life and health of an employee, citizens are exempted from paying the state duty. Moral damage is subject to compensation regardless of compensation for property damage and cannot be made dependent on its size. When applying to the court with a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of its infliction and the amount of harm (Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). In the statement of claim, based on the requirements of Article. 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff must, in particular, indicate: who, under what circumstances, by what actions (inaction) and when caused moral harm; what specifically expresses moral damage (what physical and moral suffering suffered by the plaintiff); what specific amount of money the plaintiff asks to recover from the defendant in compensation for non-pecuniary damage; What evidence supports the plaintiff's arguments?

Of great difficulty is the determination of the amounts of money that are subject to recovery in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The current legislation does not provide for clear criteria to determine the fair amount of compensation for moral damage from the loss of life and health of an employee, passing the decision on this issue to the discretion of the court, which should be determined by the specific circumstances of this case.

Taking into account the constitutional principle of competitiveness of the parties in legal proceedings (Article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), the approach here should be as follows: the plaintiff - justifies and proves the amount of non-pecuniary damage, determining it in a specific amount; the defendant - expresses his attitude to this, puts forward and substantiates objections, if any, or makes his proposal on the amount of the amount, if the claim is partially recognized; court - listens to all arguments, evaluates them and makes a decision that motivates accordingly.

It is almost impossible to give a "recipe" for calculating the amount of moral damage, suitable for all cases. The amount of this amount depends on the specific circumstances, the assessment of which requires a reasonable and balanced approach that does not allow for the definition of both unjustifiably insignificant and unreasonably high in those cases where the degree of suffering endured by the plaintiff is small. When evaluating the suffering of the victim from the harm caused to him, it is necessary to take into account not only those that he has already endured by the time of the consideration of the case, but also those that he (with all the evidence) will endure in the future, for example, with permanent disfigurement of the face, loss of limbs and etc., which can lead to complications in his personal life, deprivation of the opportunity to work in his profession and a host of other problems that cause moral trauma.

Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 1994 No. 10 “Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Compensation for Moral Damage” (with subsequent amendments) recommends that courts take into account, when determining the amount of compensation, the nature and amount of moral and physical suffering caused to the plaintiff , the degree of guilt of the defendant in each particular case, other circumstances worthy of attention, as well as the requirements of reasonableness and fairness. The degree of moral suffering should be assessed by the courts taking into account the actual circumstances of causing moral harm, the individual characteristics of the victim and other reasons. When determining the amount of non-pecuniary damage, one should also take into account the composition of the family, its financial situation, etc.

As can be seen from judicial practice, victims in most cases find it difficult to even approximately determine the amount of compensation for moral damage and substantiate their claims, which is used by unscrupulous employers. It seems that the amount of compensation for moral damage caused to the life or health of an employee as a result of an accident at work should be determined based on the total amount of lump-sum compensation paid to victims and their families in connection with accidents and catastrophes occurring in the Russian Federation.

As practice shows, the courts follow the path of an unmotivated reduction in the amount of the claimed compensation for moral damage, which is a violation of Part 4 of Art. 198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The plaintiff's task is to achieve a statement in the court decision of the arguments on the basis of which it was reduced, or to appeal this decision in a higher court. The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to the health of the victim as a result of an accident at work classified as light, as a rule, is expressed in an insignificant amount (as opposed to amounts in case of severe or fatal outcome). This is due to the fact that by the time the victim applied for compensation for moral damage, he had already recovered and started to work, his physical and moral suffering had ended.

At the same time, there are minor accidents at work, the consequences of which were the amputation of some fingers or toes, scars on the face, etc. Therefore, determining the amount of compensation for moral damage requires an individual and balanced approach. The amount of compensation for moral damage is influenced not only by violations committed by the employer or other tortfeasor, but also by violations of labor protection requirements committed by the employee himself, which were the causes of the accident that happened to him.

I. Tsvetkov

Thus, an accident at work is considered to be any incident that happened during working hours (the established break is also taken into account, as well as the performance of work on non-working holidays or weekends) on the territory of the organization. As well as those cases that occurred during a business trip, on the way to (or from) the place of work, if employees are transported by official vehicles or they use personal vehicles in accordance with an employment contract or by order of the employer. In all other situations, injuries received by an employee during working hours outside the organization are not considered an accident at work. An injury that an employee received on the territory of the organization during non-working hours can be recognized as an industrial accident if it is established that the employee at that moment was performing duties under an employment contract.

Industrial injury at lunch break (smoke break)

They are classified as follows:

it can be bodily injuries that caused temporary or permanent disability if it is necessary to transfer the victim to another job or the death of the victim.
events that are not under the control of the employer and which he may not directly influence (in particular, these are injuries that were inflicted during working hours by another person, for example, during a fight).

Thus, these injuries can be recognized as both industrial and domestic. After all, if the health of an employee is harmed by another employee of this employer, then the employer may also be to blame for this, who did not fulfill his obligations to comply with labor protection and safety regulations.

Or maybe not to blame, then such an injury will be considered as a domestic one.

Work injury or accident at work

Attention

In pp. "b" p. 3 of the Regulations on the peculiarities of the investigation of accidents at work in certain industries and organizations, approved. Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia of October 24, 2002 No.

N 73, it is also indicated that accidents at work are considered cases that occurred “on the territory of the organization, other facilities and areas assigned to the organization on the basis of ownership or lease (hereinafter referred to as the territory of the organization), or in another place of work during working hours ( including the established breaks), including while traveling to the workplace (from the workplace), as well as during the time necessary to put in order the tools of production, clothing, etc. before starting and after finishing work, or when performing work outside normal working hours, on weekends and non-working holidays.

Error 404

Injury received by employees during a lunch break or during a “smoke break” Employees can get injured while at work, but not actually performing work functions both during a lunch break and during so-called smoke breaks (smoking breaks), if such breaks (for eating, resting, smoking) are established by the employer. Grounds for establishing breaks provided for by the provisions of Articles 107, 108 and 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Important

At the same time, the time for providing such breaks and their duration are already determined by the employer in the internal labor regulations, or on the basis of an agreement reached between the employee and the employer. For example, when the employer, under the terms of an employment contract, provided employees with free meals in a canteen located in a neighboring building.

What is considered a work injury?

How can we be? What should we do? Answer: According to Federal Law N 125-FZ “On Compulsory Social Insurance against Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases”, “an accident at work is an event as a result of which the insured person received an injury or other damage to health in the performance of his duties under an employment contract (contract ) both on the territory of the insured and outside it or while traveling to the place of work or returning from the place of work on the transport provided by the insured, and which necessitated the transfer of the insured to another job, temporary or permanent loss of his professional ability to work or his death " . Labor Code of the Russian Federation in Art.

Injury at lunchtime

Info

But still, it is necessary to create a special commission to establish the causes of industrial injuries in each specific case, and a labor lawyer will help defend your rights. Not only those workers who work in production with obviously dangerous working conditions, but also office workers can get injured.

The result of an industrial injury received both at the place of work and on the way to it may be the need to transfer the injured employee to another, easier job, as well as temporary disability, or permanent disability by the employee, in rare cases - death. An illness resulting from the performance of labor functions can also be recognized as a labor injury.

An occupational injury (accident) at work is an incident as a result of which an employee received health damage in the performance of direct labor duties in accordance with an employment contract or contract.

Lunch break

What if the accident happened at lunchtime?

Indicates that an occupational injury, among other things, is an accident during working hours on the territory of the employer, including during the provided breaks, the performance of other stipulated by the internal labor regulations (hereinafter - PWTR) when performing work.

In addition to the PWTR, the lunch break schedule can be established individually with the employee when concluding an employment contract or contract.

An injury at work during a lunch break is considered an injury if an employee:

was at work
was in the company
was in the cafeteria owned by the employer
was heading to the canteen on the territory owned by the employer

As for the canteen, the poisoning in this case will also be classified as an occupational injury if it was received as a result of poor-quality food that was served in the canteen at the enterprise.

Accident during break

Most businesses have an unwritten rule during working hours. The federal law does not answer whether an industrial injury during a lunch break (smoke break) will be considered as such if it did not occur at the set time. This issue should be provided for in the PWTR and other internal documents, but in practice there is a twofold situation.

On the one hand, the employee may be in a specially designated smoking area, which is located on the territory of the employer and belongs to him. If an employee, for example, slips on the floor in a smoking room and breaks his leg, then this can be considered an occupational injury, since the slippery floor is an oversight of the employer (responsible persons).

Such examples are very common in practice and accident commissions in almost identical situations make opposite decisions.

If the employee goes out, for example, to the street or to another premises that does not belong to the employer, there will not be an industrial injury as such in any circumstances (even if the PVTR sets the time for a smoke break).