Case Sharing on Work-Related Injury Recognition (4): If an employee dies suddenly while attending a New Year’s dinner organized by the company, can it be classified as a work-related injury?
Thread Content
Case Review: Li is an employee of a certain company. In January 2015, Li suddenly died suddenly during a New Year’s Eve dinner party organized by the company. Subsequently, Li’s family filed an application for work-related injury recognition with the local social insurance administration department. After conducting an investigation, the local social insurance administration authority determined that Li suffered injuries or death while participating in activities that had no direct connection to his work, outside of working hours and at a location other than the workplace. This situation does not fall under the circumstances specified in Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, so it was decided not to recognize such incidents as work-related injuries or injuries equivalent to work-related injuries. Case Analysis In accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, there are four situations in which an employee’s death at the workplace can be classified as a work-related injury or treated as such: First, suffering an accident injury due to work reasons during working hours and in the workplace ； Second, suffering an accident injury while carrying out preparatory or concluding work related to the job within the workplace before or after working hours ； Third, suffering accidental injuries such as assaults while performing job duties during working hours and in the workplace ； Fourth, death from a sudden illness at the place of work during working hours, or death within 48 hours despite attempts to save the life. Conclusion: In this case, the company organizing an New Year’s Eve dinner for its employees is a form of welfare provided by the enterprise; it is not a mandatory activity related to job performance, and participants attend on a voluntary basis, making its nature similar to that of an ordinary gathering. Li died suddenly during the New Year’s Eve dinner event; it was neither at work time nor in the workplace, nor was it due to work-related reasons. It does not fall under any of the four aforementioned circumstances, so it cannot be classified as a work-related injury or treated as such.
It should be recognized as a work-related injury. Or the entity should bear relevant responsibility.
Activities organized by the employer should be recognized as work-related injuries
It’s very difficult to determine such ambiguous cases related to work-related injuries. I remember that many years ago while working in Xiamen, an employee at Dell died more than 50 days after a tumor ruptured during work. The family filed a lawsuit, arguing that the work stress had caused the cancer, and therefore requested that it be classified as a work-related injury. Or what if your supervisor orders you to drink with others? Would stomach bleeding be considered an occupational injury? And if you die of hypothermia after drinking at a state-owned enterprise, would that be considered dying in the line of duty and making you a martyr? These are all real cases that require reflection.
Since it is not considered a work-related injury, the family members can file a claim against the employer
It’s not a work-related injury, but the company should provide compensation...
Li Ruidi is an employee of a certain building planning and design company. On December 21, 2010, this planning and design company entered into a contract with a travel agency for a five-day tour in Beijing; the contract stipulated that there would be 4 shopping trips as part of the tour. On December 23, a team of 23 employees from the Planning and Design Co., Ltd. went to Beijing for a study visit. At around 0:10 on December 27, the large regular bus he was on suffered an accident on its way back from Beijing; Li Ruidi was injured and died despite efforts to save him. The public security traffic police determined that Li Ruidi was not responsible for the accident. On January 12, 2011, the Planning and Design Co., Ltd. submitted an application to the Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security for recognition of the injury as a work-related injury. The Bureau issued a decision stating that Li Ruidi’s death, which occurred as a result of the injuries sustained and despite attempts to save him, could not be recognized as a work-related injury or treated as such. Li Ruidi’s father disagreed with this decision and took the case to court. During the trial, the first opinion held that when an employee suffers an accident while participating in a tour organized by the employer, although it is an activity arranged by the employer, it constitutes a group outing rather than a business-related trip; therefore, it does not meet the requirements for being recognized as a work-related injury or treated as such. The second opinion holds that injuries suffered by employees during travel activities organized by their employers should be recognized as work-related injuries. The author believes that the welfare nature of activities such as organized tours by an employer should be distinguished from their work-related nature, depending on the specific circumstances. According to the Provisions on Work-related Injury Insurance, “work” is the minimum standard for determining a work-related injury; only injuries resulting from work or from the performance of duties can be recognized as work-related injuries. It is related to work, and does not refer only to one’s full-time job; in judicial practice, it can be determined from the following aspects: first, a value judgment. Any various activities arranged by an organization for its employees, with the aim of achieving the organization’s interests, and that are related to the interests of either the organization or its employees, can be considered work. The second is the boundaries of work responsibilities. Due to the differences in the nature of various organizations, the scope and content of their work also vary. Therefore, going on trips for sightseeing is an important way to broaden one’s horizons and expand thinking, and it is crucial for achieving work objectives. Whether such trips organized by these organizations are related to their work depends on the nature of those organizations. Third is job relevance. If an organization arranges a trip along with learning tasks, it can be considered an activity related to work; otherwise, if it is for purely recreational purposes, it can only be regarded as a benefit provided by the organization to its employees. Fourth is the compulsoriness of participating in the activity. If the activity is mandatory, it can be considered to have a work-related nature. Therefore, the injury suffered by Li Ruidi, an employee of the Planning and Design Co., Ltd., as a result of an accident during a trip, which led to his death despite attempts at rescue, should be recognized as an occupational injury. (Source: People’s Court News; Author’s institution: People’s Court of Ju County, Shandong Province) http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2012/07/id/531499.shtml
Administrative Judgment of the Guangdong Provincial High People’s Court (2015) Yue Gao Fa Xing Zhong Zi No. 529—— The gathering held on November 1, 2014, was decided upon after discussion by all employees of Team B of Line 7; all members of Team B of Line 7 participated in this event. The cost of the meal was covered by the bonuses received, with those bonuses being managed and settled by the team leader. The purpose of this gathering was to enhance unity and harmony among employees, strengthen their cohesion, and boost their enthusiasm, thereby facilitating better work performance. Through such activities, both the organization and its employees benefit to some extent. Therefore, the gathering is related to work and can be regarded as an extension of \"business trips for work purposes\"; thus, it can be determined that the gathering in this case was a group activity organized by the employer.
The conclusion is correct, but the organization should show compassion and definitely comfort the family of the deceased; the family should not be persistent.
It should be recognized as a work-related injury. Or the entity should bear relevant responsibility.
The benefits provided by the company are good, but they are arranged by the company itself. In my opinion, anything that is arranged by the company should be considered part of the job responsibilities.