Alcohol policy at work

GodivaLPP

Havent posted here before, just looking for opinions....

Have heard of an entity that may introduce a policy whereby employees will be ruled to be intoxicated if over the drink drive limit at testing.

So if an employee walks (or indeed drives) to work, and their job does not involve driving, and fail a test,can they then face a disciplinary? (ie, can there a limit for sitting at a desk?).

Obviously not talking about someone steaming into work two hours after a 12 hour bender!!

GLPP

TheInquisitor

Know a guy that was fired on the spot last week for coming in borderline drunk. (up till 3 drinking, arrived into work at 8). He was in charge that day. Other staff member reported him to normal manager who came in on her off day. Smelled the stench of drink off him and fired him on the spot.

GodivaLPP

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Know a guy that was fired on the spot last week for coming in borderline drunk. (up till 3 drinking, arrived into work at 8). He was in charge that day. Other staff member reported him to normal manager who came in on her off day. Smelled the stench of drink off him and fired him on the spot.

Thats common sense - but if say he was blood tested and was 1mg above the drinkdrive limit, should the same penalty apply? (for a non driving job)

GLPP

TheInquisitor

I would say that sounds very illegal!? My question on the other hand would be , what reason did they have for testing him? Did he smell of drink, look hungover etc?

TheInquisitor

Actually just found a company that provides this in Ireland so guess it isn't illegal. I suppose then its probably not illegal. Which means it doesn't matter if its for driving / using machinery or not. A company can be as strict as they want for whatever job they want.

http://www.traka.ie/index.htm

GodivaLPP

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I would say that sounds very illegal!? My question on the other hand would be , what reason did they have for testing him? Did he smell of drink, look hungover etc?

Perhaps just randomly, perhaps mandatory for everyone on a given day, no obvious signs, perhaps does/does not smell of drink.

Should the driving limit apply (bearing in mind its coming down)?

jimmycrackcorm

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Know a guy that was fired on the spot last week for coming in borderline drunk. (up till 3 drinking, arrived into work at 8). He was in charge that day. Other staff member reported him to normal manager who came in on her off day. Smelled the stench of drink off him and fired him on the spot.

I'd say that guy would have a nice compensation claim with the Labour court.

No disciplinary procedure followed for starters - never mind no proof of intoxication...

eigrod

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'd say that guy would have a nice compensation claim with the Labour court.

No disciplinary procedure followed for starters - never mind no proof of intoxication...

Exactly. Alcoholism can be defined as a disability so employers need to tread very carefully when disciplining staff for behaviour that can be attributed to such a disability.

seamus

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'd say that guy would have a nice compensation claim with the Labour court.

No disciplinary procedure followed for starters - never mind no proof of intoxication...

Well it depends, he may already have multiple warnings for the same thing.

I know in the US, some companies perform regular drug screening and all sorts of other things, but I doubt such things would be quite as easy to implement here.

A demand to breathalyse or otherwise perform a sampling test on employees would be legally suspect at best. At the very least, such a test could be seen as demeaning and an invasion of privacy. This would especially be the case where a company cannot justify the need to ensure that employees are not intoxicated.

A haulage company, for example, could justify it on the basis that a drunk driver poses a grave risk to the company, its employees and the public at large. A bank or a pub could not justify it, at worst a drunk employee could cause some embarrassment or a reversible clerical error.

Random or mandatory testing (for drugs or alcohol) could most certainly not be introduced for existing employees. The company could prevent anyone from accessing the workplace without doing such a test, but if the employee refused, the company would have to send them home with full pay. They could not fire or suspend them for not complying with someone which is not a condition of employment.

It could be stipulated in a new employee's employment contract, however I suspect it could easily be challenged on a number of fronts and be unenforceable.

There could be a middle ground though:
A company could introduce a policy whereby if someone is deemed to be intoxicated, they have the option to be tested (in private), or not be tested and receive a formal warning and go home. There would have to be set reasonable rules as to who can "determine" that an employee is intoxicated, and how the test is carried out. Similar to the Garda procedure, it would need to be done multiple times with breaks in between, using proven and calibrated equipment.

In short, it's such a ridiculous minefield that I can't see any HR department being stupid enough to think they can introduce it. Oh wait, I can