Recommendations for Compensation in the Case of an On-Duty Death Due to Alcohol Consumption

As the Head of the Human Resources Department, addressing the issue of compensation for a worker who died on duty while under the influence of alcohol requires a balanced approach. The worker’s family is demanding compensation, and the company has initially denied it based on the findings of the investigation. Here are the potential recommendations and their merits and demerits:

Recommendation 1: Provide Compensation to the Family

• Merits:
  • Humanitarian Consideration: Providing compensation demonstrates empathy and respect for the deceased worker and supports the bereaved family in their time of need. For instance, after the 2022 Mumbai building collapse, many companies provided support to the victims’ families even when negligence was involved.
  • Worker Morale: Offering compensation can prevent further unrest among the workforce and maintain overall morale. This can prevent strikes and ensure continued productivity.
  • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): It reflects a company’s commitment to social responsibility, which can enhance the company’s reputation and foster a positive work environment.
• Demerits:
  • Setting a Precedent: Providing compensation might set a precedent that could lead to future claims in similar situations, potentially creating financial strain on the company.
  • Accountability Issues: It might undermine the message of maintaining workplace safety and responsibility, especially if alcohol consumption is explicitly against company policy.

Recommendation 2: Deny Compensation Based on Policy

• Merits:
  • Policy Adherence: Denying compensation based on the policy reinforces the importance of adhering to workplace safety rules and regulations. It also upholds the company’s stance on preventing workplace intoxication.
  • Prevention of Misuse: This approach could deter workers from violating company policies, thus promoting a safer work environment.
• Demerits:
  • Employee Morale and Relations: Denying compensation might lead to labor unrest and decreased morale, as seen in the 2021 Amazon warehouse workers’ strike over safety concerns and compensation issues.
  • Public Perception: The company might face negative public relations and damage to its reputation for appearing insensitive to the family’s plight.

Recommendation 3: Partial Compensation with Conditions

• Merits:
  • Balanced Approach: Providing partial compensation, perhaps with conditions such as a cap on the amount or financial support for specific needs, strikes a balance between empathy and policy adherence.
  • Flexibility: This approach can address the family’s immediate needs while maintaining the company’s stance on workplace policies. For example, Infosys has offered partial compensation in cases of negligence but also implemented strict safety measures.
• Demerits:
  • Complexity in Implementation: Determining the conditions and amount might be complex and could still lead to dissatisfaction among the workers or the deceased’s family.
  • Potential for Disputes: There could be disagreements over the terms and the amount, leading to further disputes or legal challenges.

Conclusion:

The most balanced recommendation would be Recommendation 3: Partial Compensation with Conditions. It allows the company to demonstrate compassion and responsibility while maintaining its policy on workplace safety. This approach can mitigate potential unrest and maintain a positive work environment without completely disregarding company policies.