Can an individual who works “on invoice” claim compensation for a work-related injury? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic (21 Cdo 3061/2020). In practice, it depends on whether or not the work is dependent work.

This is still a very topical issue because the performance of work “on invoice”, which in reality shows the characteristics of dependent work, is very widespread in practice. Employers should therefore be cautious when setting up cooperation with self-employed workers, so that their mutual relationship does not exhibit the characteristics of dependent work and is not treated as a de facto employment relationship with all its consequences in the event of any related dispute, as was the case, for example, in the case described below.

The plaintiff, as a self-employed person, participated in the repair of a mining machine for the defendant company. However, during the repair of the machine in question, the defendant suffered a permanent injury when a heavy load fell on his leg. The plaintiff claimed compensation from the company for pain and suffering, for aggravation of social position, loss of earnings and also payment of a monthly annuity (i.e. labour law claims), as he considered that although he formally performed work as a self-employed person, in his case it was in fact the performance of dependent work for the defendant company. 

The plaintiff saw performance of dependent work in the fact that the work, during which the injury occurred, was performed at the defendant company’s workplace, together with the defendant’s employees and within the defendant’s weekly working hours, which the defendant also recorded in the plaintiff’s case. The defendant also provided the plaintiff with the necessary facilities and work equipment, transported him to the workplace and trained him in occupational health and safety.

The defendant countered by arguing that all of the impugned elements of their working relationship arose from the specific working environment of the quarrying mines, which required increased protection for working persons, and that, in light of “special mining regulations”, she had to directly coordinate all persons involved in repairing the machine.  Furthermore, the defendant argued that within the specific workplace, “commercial contracts” were commonly made with business entities without these being employment relationships. 

However, all the courts have concluded that in this case it was dependent work on the part of the plaintiff. He is therefore entitled to the same compensation as the defendant’s other employees, because his injury is deemed to be a work-related injury. The Supreme Court summarized its decision as follows: "Where no valid agreement to perform work or to complete a job has been negotiated and there are no express expressions of intent, it must always be examined whether an employment relationship has been established between the parties; the type of work which the employee, without objection, began to perform for the employer with the employer’s knowledge may be deemed to be the agreed one, the place where he began to work may be deemed to be the agreed place of work, and the date on which he actually began to perform such work may be deemed to be the agreed date of commencement of work. The subjective ideas of the parties about their relationship are not decisive for the determination of what legal relationship has been created between the parties, but relevant.”

Therefore, the defendant company in this case is liable for the work injury as an employer. If you are currently dealing with a similar case and do not know what to do, please, do not hesitate to contact us.

Author: Veronika Odrobinová, Jessica Vaculíková