Workplace Injury: Construction Company Must Pay 74,058 Yuan for Level 9 Disability After Worker Falls

A construction company in southwestern China has been ordered to pay 74,058 yuan in workplace injury compensation to a worker who fell while performing exterior wall work on a renovation project, after the court rejected the company’s argument that the employment relationship was merely a contracting arrangement.

Mr. He was hired on June 1, 2010 to work on an exterior wall scraping project at a city renovation site managed by Dongke Decoration and Construction Company. The company had delegated the project to a site supervisor named Mr. Zhou through a construction contract and a labor safety agreement. No formal employment contract was signed between Mr. He and the company.

On June 15, 2010, just two weeks after starting work, Mr. He fell and was injured on the job. He was initially treated at a local hospital and then transferred to an orthopedic hospital where he remained until December 1, 2010. The local labor and social security bureau classified his injury as a workplace injury in January 2011. In March 2011, the labor capacity assessment committee rated his disability at level nine.

The central legal question in this case was whether Mr. He had an employment relationship with Dongke Company or merely a contracting relationship through Mr. Zhou. Dongke Company argued that the construction contract it signed with Mr. Zhou was a processing and contracting agreement, and that as the commissioning party, it should not bear liability for Mr. He’s injuries.

The court examined the terms of the contracts between Dongke Company and Mr. Zhou. These contracts specified that Dongke Company would provide water, electricity, and scaffolding. Mr. Zhou was designated as the on-site responsible person. Workers were required to wear company uniforms during construction and return them after the project ended. The company retained the right to inspect and supervise the entire construction site for safety compliance. The company also assumed responsibility for any personal injury accidents caused by its own directives.

Based on these contractual provisions, the court found that the fundamental characteristic of an employment relationship existed. Dongke Company exercised management authority over the worksite and directed the construction activities. Mr. Zhou, as the authorized representative, hired Mr. He to perform labor within the scope of the project. Under agency law principles, the acts of an authorized agent within the scope of authorization should be attributed to the principal. Therefore, the court concluded that an employment relationship existed between Mr. He and Dongke Company.

Having established the employment relationship, the court confirmed that Mr. He’s injury constituted a workplace injury as officially recognized by the relevant government authority. He was entitled to workplace injury insurance benefits.

Regarding the compensation amount, since neither party provided evidence of Mr. He’s actual wages, the court adopted the arbitration committee’s approach of using the provincial average wage at the time of injury as the calculation standard. The total compensation included 1,032.60 yuan for unpaid wages during the period from June 1 to 15, 3,380 yuan for hospital food subsidies during 169 days of hospitalization, 21,143.40 yuan for suspended wage treatment during recovery, 20,214 yuan as a one-time disability benefit for nine months, 15,258 yuan as a one-time medical subsidy for six months, and 25,430 yuan as a one-time employment disability subsidy for ten months. The total of 86,458 yuan was reduced by the 12,400 yuan that Mr. He and his family had already borrowed from the company, resulting in a net payment of 74,058 yuan.

The court ordered the employment relationship terminated and directed Dongke Company to make the payment within five days of the judgment taking effect. The case acceptance fee of 5 yuan was charged to the company.

This case highlights that companies cannot avoid workplace injury liability by characterizing employment relationships as contracting arrangements when the substantive elements of management and supervision are present.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for legal matters.