The Management of Banks/ DIH, has responded to an article appearing on page 11 of the Sunday Chronicle dated April 18, under the headline: “Death of Banks/ DIH salesman still haunts relatives”.
The letter dated April 20 states inter alia, “Please be advised as follows”:
1. At the time of his passing, Mr. Michael Grant had been employed with our company for four years and 9 months and not 7years as contended in the article. If we were indeed contacted, Mr. Grant’s date of employment would have been easily verified. Mr. Grant’s hand written letter of application for employment to the company was dated July 6, 2004, and his employment became effective from the 15th day of July, 2004.
2. Contrary to the picture painted in the article, our company shows great concern for all employees. Subsequent to the CLICO fallout, we immediately put measures in place to secure our employees interests. As such, at the time of Mr. Grant’s passing, the company did have a Group Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Policy in effect.
3. Members of his family visited the company and were advised of a death benefit to which Mr. Grant’s beneficiary, upon his demise, was entitled. The family was further advised that they would be required to complete the relevant documentation, to which a copy of his death certificate and relevant Letters of Administration must be annexed, in order to file such a claim. No such claim was ever submitted to our company or the insurance company for processing.
4. Paragraph 13 of the article is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The company paid Mr. Grant’s funeral expenses in full, which amounted to $158,840,00 and not $175,000 as reported.
The letter continues: “It is evident that all reasonable care was not exercised by your newspaper before this article was published. We express our disappointment at this, as we have come to expect a higher level of research and investigation and research from your newspaper.”
“We therefore request a printed apology from your newspaper and a publication of an accurate representation of the facts.”
In keeping with Banks DIH suggestion that a higher level of research and investigation be done, this newspaper approached the Ministry of Labour, in order to be advised on the procedure for dealing with the death of an employee ‘on the job’ and Ms. Sharon Datsun (Grant’s spouse), to seek clarification on what appears to have been conflicting information on Mr. Grant’s period of service to Banks DIH and the amount paid by that company as funeral expenses.
Ms. Datsun, on checking the documents at her disposal, admitted that there was an error in the amount she said was paid as funeral expense on her husband’s behalf. She has agreed that his employers paid $158,840.00 to the funeral parlour, and not $175,000 as was mistakenly related to this newspaper. She has apologized, but is however, standing by her story about $90,000 being owed by her dead husband, which she said was information she received from their office.
As for his period of employment with the company, while giving Banks DIH the benefit of the doubt, Datsun sought clarification from the Ministry of Labour, through this newspaper, on the difference the period of service would have made, when considering whether compensation should be paid for the death of an employee on the job.
Datsun, in response to (3) above, said that the family did visit her husband’s employers with whom they had discussions, and submitted the death certificate and other documents in support of their claim. She said that at that stage, they (the family) were advised that “their (the company’s ) part” of the exercise was over, and the family would now have to await action by the Insurance company.”
The Ministry of Labour, on the other hand, advised as follows: “Provided that it could be established that the person was in the employ of that company and died on the job, his beneficiary is entitled to receive compensation for his death. It is for both parties (the family and employers) to sit down and work out what compensation would be paid.
The labour officer added: “We (the Ministry of Labour) would however, like persons to know that both the family and the employers have a legal responsibility to the Ministry of Labour, to report the death of that employee to us, within a statutory period of six (6) months.”
On receiving the report, the Ministry would visit the workplace and conduct investigations which would allow them to determine whether or not to prosecute in relation to the death of the employee.
Datsun however claimed that family members were abysmally unaware of the need for them to report the death to the Ministry of Labour, adding that, as a result they never did. She said she is unaware whether her husband’s employers reported the death, but wishes to be advised.