Photo from Unsplash | moniek van rosse
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The basis of compensability under the Bunkhouse Rule is when employees are required by the nature of their work to stay within the premises of their respective employers. (Arguilles v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc., G.R. No. 254586)
The Bunkhouse Rule is aptly defined as one where the employee is required to stay in the premises or in quarters furnished by the employer, injuries sustained therein are in the course of employment regardless of the time the same occurred. (Uy v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, G.R. No. 43389, April 28, 1980)
Admittedly, there is a scarcity of jurisprudential discussions in our jurisdiction with regard to the Bunkhouse Rule. Thus, in Arguilles v. Wilhelmsen Smith Bell Manning, Inc. (G.R. No. 254586, July 10, 2023), the Supreme Court took a glimpse at foreign jurisprudence for enhanced understanding of this seldom-visited legal principle:
The Supreme Court of California in Larson v. Industrial Accident Commission declared that the test in determining the application of the Bunkhouse Rule is whether or not the employee is given a choice in the matter of where to live and is as free as possible to come or go as he or she pleases. The basic underpinning for this test, as explained by the Court of Appeals of Oregon in Leo Polehn Orchards v. Hernandez, is that it is the obligation of employment to be on the premises that creates the risk of injury to the employee; when the employee is free to leave when he or she pleases, that employment connection does not exist.
In Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Company, the Court of Appeals of California declared that where social or recreational pursuits on the employer’s premises after hours are endorsed by the express or implied permission of the employer and are “conceivable” of some benefit to the employer or, even in the absence of proof of benefit, if such activities have become “a customary incident of the employment relationship,” an employee engaged in such pursuits after hours is still acting within the scope of his employment.
As summarized by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in O’Rourke v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, the Bunkhouse Rule imposes workers’ compensation liability on an employer that requires its workers to live in employer-furnished premises, which the employer controls, maintains, and uses for its benefit.
Prescinding from the foregoing, one can discern that the basis of compensability under the Bunkhouse Rule is when employees are required by the nature of their work to stay within the premises of their respective employers.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.