Do companies have to provide ergonomic chairs to all teleworkers?

 

The implementation of teleworking has posed new challenges for companies, especially in terms of occupational risk prevention and provision of material resources. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court clarifies the extent of business obligations: there is no general obligation to provide ergonomic chairs to the entire teleworking staff, except in specific cases.

1. The case and the Supreme Court's decision

The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed the validity of a company's decision not to provide ergonomic chairs to all teleworkers, but only to those with justified medical needs.
The decision was in response to an appeal filed by FeSMC-UGT, which requested extending the measure to the entire staff.

The High Court rejected this claim, understanding that the ergonomic chair is not a general working condition but an individual preventive measure subject to the risk assessment of each position.
Furthermore, the company complied with the rest of the basic obligations: it provided the necessary equipment (computer, charger, headphones, and mouse) and paid a monthly compensation of 30 euros for teleworking expenses, an amount higher than that stipulated in the collective agreement.

2. Legal key points of the ruling

The Court bases its decision on several fundamental arguments:

• There is no violation of the principle of equality, as on-site employees and teleworkers are not in an identical situation regarding ergonomic conditions.

• The obligation to provide ergonomic material arises only when there is a specific risk assessment determining the need, or a medical prescription validated by the prevention service.

• Generic ergonomic risk alone is not sufficient to impose the obligation to provide a chair to the entire staff.

In this way, the Supreme Court reinforces the freedom of business organization within the limits of occupational risk prevention.

3. When there is indeed a business obligation

The ruling clarifies that companies must provide ergonomic furniture or other specific measures in the following cases:

• When the individual assessment of the workplace detects a specific ergonomic risk.

• If there is a medical prescription justifying it.

• When the collective agreement or teleworking agreement expressly contemplates it.

These measures are framed within the Occupational Risk Prevention Law and must be applied in a proportionate and documented manner.

4. Practical implications for companies

The Supreme Court's ruling provides regulatory clarity in a context where obligations regarding teleworking still raise doubts.
Companies must consider the following key points:

• They are not obliged to provide ergonomic equipment indiscriminately.

• They must maintain updated prevention plans that include teleworking.

• Expense compensation must be reasonable and verifiable, in accordance with the collective agreement or individual agreement.

• An internal procedure must be guaranteed so that workers can request additional equipment when there are medical or preventive reasons.

This judicial criterion allows companies to optimize resources and adjust their internal policies, avoiding unnecessary costs and potential claims.

The Supreme Court's ruling represents progress in defining business responsibilities in teleworking.
Confirm that companies are not required to provide ergonomic chairs to their entire staff, but must ensure the safety and health of workers through a proper risk assessment and personalized measures when necessary.