A 33-year-old programmer suddenly died while working out during lunch break. The company said that the workout took place during the time period assigned by the company at the designated locations and that this time counts as part of the 8-hour workday. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau said it would not be considered a work-related injury. The court ruled as follows.

Ask AI · Why did the company include workout time in working hours?

A programmer,

during the lunch break,

goes to the designated gym

cooperatively provided by the company

to work out, then collapses and dies suddenly;

the company applies for workers’ compensation on his behalf,

and the labor and social security bureau decides not to recognize it.

The two sides go to court over it,

how will the court rule?

↓↓↓

File photo/Visual China

Case Recap

In July 2018, Liu was hired by a Beijing technology company as a front-end developer programmer. The labor contract he signed was an open-ended contract, starting from July 2, 2018.

The company’s employee handbook provides:

① Attendance time complies with the provisions of the national labor law, with a flexible work schedule of 5 days per week and 8 hours per day, and the work start and end times may be adjusted flexibly.

② Due to the special nature of the work, the time employees spend exercising at locations designated by the company is included in the 8 hours of working time.

③ If the workout is done during lunchtime, the employee may do it without needing approval from the supervisor, as long as it is within 2 hours for a reasonable duration.

④ If the employee works out during other working hours outside of lunchtime, they need approval from the supervisor; otherwise, it is deemed absenteeism.

Around 13:05 on December 5, 2018, Liu, after going to a certain swimming and fitness gym that the company designated as its cooperative facility, was found by the gym staff to have fainted in the locker room. After attempts at resuscitation in the hospital were unsuccessful, Liu was declared dead at around 15:24 on December 5, 2018.

On February 15, 2019, the company submitted an application for a determination of work-related injury to the labor and social security bureau of the district where it is located.

On April 11, 2019, the labor and social security bureau of the district issued a challenged decision of not recognizing a work-related injury, determining that the death injury suffered by Liu was not in working time or working location and did not fall under the circumstances of deemed work-related injury as provided in Article 15, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance; therefore, it was not recognized as a work-related injury.

The company argued:

① According to the company’s rules and regulations, when the accident occurred to Liu, it was within working time.

② The company is a military high-tech enterprise mainly engaged in computer R&D. The requirements for technical positions are very high, and programmers face heavy work pressure. The company knows that having a healthy body leads to high efficiency, so it places special importance on employees’ physical fitness. To this end, the company has successively rented nearby venues as company fitness facilities, so the fitness facilities should fall within the scope of work.

③ In September 2018, due to a surge in business volume, the company issued the “Emergency Overtime Management System,” which imposed higher requirements on programmers’ working time and work intensity. Liu basically worked overtime every day, with immense pressure. In addition, Liu was 33 years old at the time of the incident, in the prime of his life, and had excellent physical fitness—he was a nationally qualified second-tier athlete. The company is a sensitive entity; cameras are installed at the office location. After analyzing the monitoring footage of all of Liu’s activities on the day of the incident and conducting visits to nearby colleagues, the company believed that Liu met the condition of dying suddenly due to heavy work pressure.

Subsequently, the company filed an administrative lawsuit with the court.

Court ruling:

The employee’s sudden death at his job and during working time

constitutes a work-related injury

First instance

The court held that the main issues in this case are twofold—

■ Determination of Liu’s working time

China’s Labor Law does not provide a clear definition of “working time,” but it only stipulates the implementation of an 8-hour work system. Generally, working time is understood to have continuity; it cannot simply be interpreted as labor time.

In general, to determine whether a period of time qualifies as working time, factors can be considered comprehensively, such as whether the worker’s activities during that period align with the employing unit’s purpose, whether the worker engaged in activities related to the work content, and whether the worker was under the direction, supervision, and control of the employing unit, among others.

In this case, the company’s employee handbook states that the time employees spend exercising at locations designated by the company is included in the 8 hours of working time. The workout time on the day Liu died complied with the company’s provisions on working time and also complied with factors such as being controlled and directed by the company, and the purpose being to create better benefits for the company. Therefore, his workout time at the time of the incident should be recognized as working time.

■ Determination of Liu’s job position

For the determination of a job position, it should be assessed in conjunction with whether the activities performed by the employee are related to the work. Workplaces have a certain degree of extensibility; they cannot be limited only to the areas during production, operation, or training, nor to the specific areas related to the employee’s job responsibilities, and reasonable areas naturally extending from those areas should also be considered workplaces.

In this case, although Liu was not actually at his usual work position at the time of the incident, the company had designated the certain swimming and fitness gym as an extension of company premises. Therefore, Liu’s workout should not be regarded as unrelated to the job; it may be determined that at the time of the incident he was within a reasonable area. The district labor and social security bureau argued that Liu’s workout was a personal act with no necessary connection to the work, and there was insufficient evidence to support it; this court does not support that view.

In summary, Liu’s situation falls under Article 15, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance: where death occurs due to sudden illness during working time and working position.

The judgment revokes the district labor and social security bureau’s decision not to recognize the work-related injury, and orders the district labor and social security bureau to handle the company’s application for recognition of a work-related injury again.

The district labor and social security bureau was dissatisfied and appealed.

Second instance

The court held that the company’s employee handbook, as a set of relevant company rules and regulations, can be used as an attachment to the labor contract and has the same effect as the labor contract. In this case, the handbook’s provisions on working time meet the requirements of a standard working hour system and do not violate laws or administrative regulations. Liu’s workout time complies with the company’s provisions on working time and therefore should be considered working time.

Taking into account the characteristics of its industry and its special production and work needs, the company encourages employees to recover good mental state and strengthen their bodies through exercise, and it provides and designates specific fitness venues for employees. It also makes corresponding provisions in the employee handbook regarding working time, as well as the conduct of entering into agreements with fitness venues, all of which are intended to enable employees to work more efficiently and healthily—actions directly related to promoting employees to better perform their job duties. Liu’s conduct should be deemed related to the work, and the location where the incident occurred may be recognized as his job position.

In summary, Liu should be recognized as having died despite treatment for a sudden illness while at working time and working position, which meets the provisions of Article 15, Item 1 of the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance. Therefore, it should be recognized as a deemed work-related injury.

Judgment as follows: dismiss the appeal, and uphold the judgment of the first instance.

Source | Shengongshe, Hunan Workers’ Daily, Hubei Federation of Trade Unions, 9pnews, Hubei Daily, etc.

Editor | Ai Yu

Proofreader | Xie Zhizhong

Reviewed and Approved by | Cen Jiechang