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 investigation that he was drunk at the time of the accident. The workers of the company went to strike demanding compensation for the family of the deceased. The Chairman of the management board has asked for your recommendation. What recommendation would you provide the management? Discuss the merits and demerits of each of the recommendations.

As HR head I must recommend a course after a worker died on duty while intoxicated; his family demands compensation, the company has refused citing his drunkenness, and the workforce is on strike. The decision must balance compassion for an innocent family, fairness to the company, industrial harmony and the discouragement of misconduct.

Stakeholders

• The deceased's dependent family — innocent of his conduct, facing loss of their breadwinner.
• The company and management — legal liability, finances and precedent.
• The striking workers and union — solidarity and industrial peace.
• Other employees and society — workplace safety and fair treatment.

Ethical and legal issues

• Compassion for blameless dependents versus the worker's own contributory negligence.
• The employer's duty of care and workplace-safety obligation — was alcohol use unchecked on the premises?
• Legally, under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the intoxication defence does not apply where the injury results in death — so the family may in fact be entitled to compensation.
• Risk of moral hazard: unconditional payment could appear to condone misconduct.

Options

• Deny compensation strictly. Merit: deters indiscipline, seemingly protects finances. Demerit: harsh on innocent dependents, legally weak given the death, and inflames the strike.
• Pay full compensation unconditionally. Merit: compassionate, ends the strike quickly. Demerit: may condone negligence and set a costly precedent.
• Grant humanitarian assistance while reforming safety. Provide statutory compensation/ex-gratia and welfare (schooling for children, employment to a dependent) to the family, and simultaneously institute preventive measures — alcohol screening, safety protocols and an employee assistance programme. Merit: balances compassion, legality and accountability, and restores industrial peace. Demerit: requires negotiation and firm communication of the new norms.

Recommendation

I would recommend the third option: extend fair compensation and humanitarian support to the blameless family — which the law on a fatal accident also supports — while clearly instituting alcohol-control and safety reforms so that discipline is upheld going forward. I would also propose transparent communication with the striking workers explaining both the humanitarian grant and the new safety norms, so the settlement is seen as principled rather than as capitulation, and would counsel the management that punishing a dead worker's dependents for his lapse is neither legally sound nor morally defensible. This course honours the family's dignity, respects the law, protects the company's long-term reputation and finances, deters future indiscipline through prevention rather than harshness, and rebuilds trust with the workforce — a resolution that is compassionate without being permissive.