Answer:

Introduction:

The case involves a worker’s death on duty, with the company denying compensation due to the worker’s intoxication. This leads to a strike by the workers demanding compensation for the deceased worker’s family.

Body:

After careful consideration of the situation, I would recommend the following course of action to the management:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review: Thoroughly investigate the incident to confirm the facts and circumstances surrounding the worker’s death. Ensure that all aspects, including the worker’s state of intoxication, are taken into account during the investigation.

Merits:

• A comprehensive review will provide a clear understanding of the events leading to the worker’s death.
• It will help establish the extent to which the worker’s intoxication contributed to the accident.

Demerits:

• The investigation process may take time, causing delays in addressing the workers’ demand for compensation.
• The outcome of the investigation may not align with the expectations of the workers or the deceased worker’s family.

2. Consult legal experts: Seek advice from legal professionals to understand the company’s legal obligations and potential liabilities in this situation. Ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding compensation for work-related accidents.

Merits:

• Legal consultation ensures that the company follows the appropriate legal framework in determining compensation eligibility.
• It helps protect the company from potential legal ramifications.

Demerits:

• Legal advice may result in the recommendation to deny compensation based on the worker’s intoxication, which may exacerbate the workers’ dissatisfaction and intensify the strike.
• Strict adherence to legal obligations without considering compassionate aspects could harm the company’s reputation and employee morale.

3. Engage in dialogue with the workers’ representatives: Initiate discussions with the workers’ representatives to understand their concerns and demands. Provide a platform for open communication and express empathy towards the deceased worker’s family.

Merits:

• Engaging in dialogue shows a willingness to address the workers’ concerns and find a mutually beneficial solution.
• It demonstrates the company’s commitment to maintaining positive employee relations and resolving conflicts through peaceful means.

Demerits:

• Dialogues may not immediately resolve the demand for compensation, potentially prolonging the strike and negatively impacting productivity.
• The workers’ representatives may remain firm in their demands, making it challenging to reach a satisfactory resolution.

4. Explore alternative support measures: While denying formal compensation due to the worker’s intoxication, consider providing alternative support to the deceased worker’s family. This could include assistance with funeral expenses, counseling services, or facilitating access to relevant government benefits and resources.

Merits:

• Offering alternative support measures demonstrates the company’s compassion towards the deceased worker’s family, even if formal compensation is denied.
• It helps address some of the immediate financial and emotional needs of the family.

Demerits:

• Providing alternative support may not fully satisfy the workers’ demand for compensation, potentially prolonging the strike or creating ongoing dissatisfaction among employees.
• Implementing support measures may have financial implications for the company, requiring budget adjustments in other areas.

Conclusion:

It is important for the management to carefully weigh the merits and demerits of each recommendation, taking into account legal obligations, employee morale, the company’s reputation, and the financial implications.The final decision should aim to strike a balance between compassion for the deceased worker’s family and the long-term interests of the company and its employees.