Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Alcohol policy at work

  • 28-06-2011 10:44pm
    #1
    GodivaLPP
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭


    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


Comments

  • #2
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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.


  • #3
    GodivaLPP
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭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


  • #4
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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?


  • #5
    TheInquisitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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


  • #6
    GodivaLPP
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭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)?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,346 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #8
    eigrod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,612 ✭✭✭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.


  • #9
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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 :)


Advertisement