In business activities, whether alcohol-related deaths could be identified as work-related injuries?

At the end of each year, various business gatherings and enterprises’ annual parties are typical programs. Alcohol is one of the links in those activities. Some people may be tipsy, some people may get drunk, and some people may die. If an individual died due to drinking too much alcohol in a business gathering, whether such death could be identified as a work-related injury? It depends.

Firstly, if an employee got drunk and met the intoxication standard, such circumstance shall not be identified as a work-related injury. Both Article 37 of the “Social Security Law” and Article 16 of the “Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance” stipulate that an employee who is intoxicated by alcohol, the relevant injury shall not be identified or deemed as a work-related injury. Regarding the intoxication standard, Article 10 of the “Several Provisions on Implementation of the Social Security Law” stipulates that the intoxication standard shall be referred to the Blood and Breath Alcohol Threshold Levels and Testing for Car Drivers (GB19522-2004). According to GB19522-2004, if the blood-alcohol level is higher than or equal to 80mg/100ml, it shall be identified as “Intoxication”.

Secondly, for those who have not met the intoxication standard, in judicial practice, the court would make its decision by considering whether the employee has to drink alcohol due to work reason. Common work-related factors include:

(1) Whether the employee is assigned by the employer to participate in business gatherings? For example, in the case (2018) Liao 01 Xing Zhong No.1958, the court held that the employee had dinner, and participated in karaoke with others during his business trip, however, the company did not assign him to do so, the employee participated in those activities in his personal time.

(2) Whether the employee has a work-related responsibility? For example, in the case (2015) Yue Gao Fa Xing Shen Zi No. 171, the court held that the employee got drunk in the company’s year-end party, which is a personal behavior instead of implementing his work-related responsibility.

(3) Whether there is a reasonable extension of working hours? For example, in the case (2022) Hu 03 Xing Zhong No.97, the court held that the employee participated in the business dinner was a reasonable extension of working hours, because the company paid for this dinner, but the company did not pay for the karaoke, so his latter behavior during the karaoke went beyond the scope of a reasonable extension of working hours.

Finally, if such alcohol-related death has not been identified as a work-related injury, it does not mean that the company can be completely exempted from liabilities. There are two main reasons. On the one hand, if an employee got drunk and met the intoxication standard due to work-related reasons, although the work-related injury insurance will not compensate, the employee could claim for the infringement liabilities against the employer. On the other hand, the social security departments identify work-related injuries from the perspective of administrative management, however, the administrative decisions may be overturned by courts occasionally in judicial practice, if a court finally identifies such circumstance is a work-related injury, then the employer shall bear its liabilities.

In summary, as an employee, to take care of your own health is the first priority, alcohol is not the only link in business activities. As an employer, in order to ensure the health of employees and reduce legal risks, it is recommended to implement the concept of civilized social rules in the employees’ trainings. In addition, it is recommended to remind employees to drink alcohol appropriately in a reasonable manner in the activities organized by the employer.