Q. You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organisation. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in an investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went on strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the Management board has asked for your recommendation.
What recommendations would you provide the management?
Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.
Q. You are the head of the Human Resources department of an organisation. One day one of the workers died on duty. His family was demanding compensation. However, the company denied compensation because it was revealed in an investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went on strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the Management board has asked for your recommendation.
What recommendations would you provide the management?
Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.
It seems that the death was due to an accident. The company denied compensation because the deceased worker was drunk when the accident occurred. Obviously, rules for compensation for accidental death stipulates that worker will be ineligible to compensation if they are drunk while on duty. One alternative will be go by the policy and deny compensation following the company’s earlier decision. This will be harsh, and will displease worker.
It may be worthwhile to consider whether the accident can be attributed wholly to the drunken state of the worker or whether other factors were also at play. Normally , it is presumed that intoxication makes a worker lose his normal caution. This may heighten risk of accident. But independent of the worker’s carelessness, the job may have carried risk factors. These predisposing conditions for accident could have been present. In their absence, the worker’s intoxication would not have been a causative factor. These would be mitigating factors and warrant payment to the deceased worker.
In an accident involving fatalities, it is better to avoid playing strictly by the rule book. Many provisions are added to rules to ensure discipline in work environment. In a normal situation, if unruly workers violate workplace discipline, they can be penalized. But a worker’s death is a tragic incident. In that situation, throwing the rulebook at his surviving family members in order to deprive them of compensation seems heartless. No great expense will be involved and such events will be rare. In this case, the HR manager should recommend payment of compensation to the deceased worker's family.
It seems that the death was due to an accident. The company denied compensation because the deceased worker was drunk when the accident occurred. Obviously, rules for compensation for accidental death stipulates that worker will be ineligible to compensation if they are drunk while on duty. One alternative will be go by the policy and deny compensation following the company’s earlier decision. This will be harsh, and will displease worker.
It may be worthwhile to consider whether the accident can be attributed wholly to the drunken state of the worker or whether other factors were also at play. Normally , it is presumed that intoxication makes a worker lose his normal caution. This may heighten risk of accident. But independent of the worker’s carelessness, the job may have carried risk factors. These predisposing conditions for accident could have been present. In their absence, the worker’s intoxication would not have been a causative factor. These would be mitigating factors and warrant payment to the deceased worker.
In an accident involving fatalities, it is better to avoid playing strictly by the rule book. Many provisions are added to rules to ensure discipline in work environment. In a normal situation, if unruly workers violate workplace discipline, they can be penalized. But a worker’s death is a tragic incident. In that situation, throwing the rulebook at his surviving family members in order to deprive them of compensation seems heartless. No great expense will be involved and such events will be rare. In this case, the HR manager should recommend payment of compensation to the deceased worker's family.
