Breathalysers At Work - Anyone got an employers perspective?
Discussion
I am certain one of my drivers has a drinking problem and has turned up for work smelling of alcohol, slurring his speech and staggering. He has been sent home after agreeing he was 'unfit for work' but denies it was alcohol the next day.
Our contracts of employment reserve the right for random breath testing of employees but I know it isn't as simple as that if I am to prove his condition beyond any doubt.
Any experience out there?
Our contracts of employment reserve the right for random breath testing of employees but I know it isn't as simple as that if I am to prove his condition beyond any doubt.
Any experience out there?
Not necessarily fire him but all our employees are drivers and this cannot be tolerated - his condition needs to be proven even if I am to discipline him let alone fire him.
He is very smart and knows we have to prove something beyond doubt before action can be taken. I have already been to an Employment Tribunal this year - and won - but it is still an experience to be avoided if possible.
He is very smart and knows we have to prove something beyond doubt before action can be taken. I have already been to an Employment Tribunal this year - and won - but it is still an experience to be avoided if possible.
We use one at work. I have no idea who makes it, but it says 'Alert' on the case and its grey in colour. When they bought it about a year ago it was just under £500 and it the supposed to be the type the police use.
Since owning it has become public knowledge after one employee was tested (and was found fit) the one or two questionable employees have bucked their ideas up so it would seem that the threat of testing has done the job
The Director issued a letter to all employees informing them that due to amount of heavy plant and vehicles onsite, the insurance company had requested that they carry out random tests... I have no idea whether or not this was actually the case, but there were no complaints
Since owning it has become public knowledge after one employee was tested (and was found fit) the one or two questionable employees have bucked their ideas up so it would seem that the threat of testing has done the job
The Director issued a letter to all employees informing them that due to amount of heavy plant and vehicles onsite, the insurance company had requested that they carry out random tests... I have no idea whether or not this was actually the case, but there were no complaints
ultimasimon said:
We use one at work. I have no idea who makes it, but it says 'Alert' on the case and its grey in colour. When they bought it about a year ago it was just under £500 and it the supposed to be the type the police use.
Since owning it has become public knowledge after one employee was tested (and was found fit) the one or two questionable employees have bucked their ideas up so it would seem that the threat of testing has done the job
The Director issued a letter to all employees informing them that due to amount of heavy plant and vehicles onsite, the insurance company had requested that they carry out random tests... I have no idea whether or not this was actually the case, but there were no complaints
Since owning it has become public knowledge after one employee was tested (and was found fit) the one or two questionable employees have bucked their ideas up so it would seem that the threat of testing has done the job
The Director issued a letter to all employees informing them that due to amount of heavy plant and vehicles onsite, the insurance company had requested that they carry out random tests... I have no idea whether or not this was actually the case, but there were no complaints
Yes that's the sort of approach I was going to take. It seems an analyser that has UK type approval is admissable evidence in court or tribunal hearing, anything else can be discredited leaving the employer facing an unfair dismissal settlement.
Edited by RedCabbage on Friday 18th August 21:47
We have this issue with our drivers at work. We have equipped all our managers with small breath test kits which if we need to use we do. We have used them a couple of times and one was borderline the other lit up like a xmas tree. We contacted the police who would not come out even though he had driven in. We dismiss for this as gross misconduct. We do not have to prove in the eyes of the employment law he was over the limit, we have to show that every thing in our handbook is followed and that there was no other reason for his state.
This is a simplistic explanation but google and there are employers sites which have help. The main problem is you cannot really make policy as a situation happens they should be thought out in advance. "staggering" would suggest abuse but again you need to have appropriate systems and procedures.
This is a simplistic explanation but google and there are employers sites which have help. The main problem is you cannot really make policy as a situation happens they should be thought out in advance. "staggering" would suggest abuse but again you need to have appropriate systems and procedures.
spaximus said:
We have this issue with our drivers at work. We have equipped all our managers with small breath test kits which if we need to use we do. We have used them a couple of times and one was borderline the other lit up like a xmas tree. We contacted the police who would not come out even though he had driven in. We dismiss for this as gross misconduct. We do not have to prove in the eyes of the employment law he was over the limit, we have to show that every thing in our handbook is followed and that there was no other reason for his state.
This is a simplistic explanation but google and there are employers sites which have help. The main problem is you cannot really make policy as a situation happens they should be thought out in advance. "staggering" would suggest abuse but again you need to have appropriate systems and procedures.
This is a simplistic explanation but google and there are employers sites which have help. The main problem is you cannot really make policy as a situation happens they should be thought out in advance. "staggering" would suggest abuse but again you need to have appropriate systems and procedures.
Our employee contracts are pretty detailed and have discipline procedures in place that saved the day at the last tribunal. Hopefully if we follow them to the letter this time we should be ok.
I work it IT for an airline and it is well documented in the press of several incidents where pilots have been found drunk on duty, thankfully before the aircraft has even been started.
Anyhow, the company decided that it needed to introduce (random) testing (both alchohol and drugs) of the aircrew. At the point the unions got involved on grounds of discrimination as the aircrew felt they were being singled out.
Agreement was finally reached by deciding to make it a blanket policy on ALL staff on in the company, even if not in a safety related postion. In fact, I was a lucky recipient of said "lottery" and called in. I would like to state that all results were nagative.
That said, my point is that if you introduce a random testing policy, be aware of the any discrimination factors even if you are only trying to "weed out" certain people.
Anyhow, the company decided that it needed to introduce (random) testing (both alchohol and drugs) of the aircrew. At the point the unions got involved on grounds of discrimination as the aircrew felt they were being singled out.
Agreement was finally reached by deciding to make it a blanket policy on ALL staff on in the company, even if not in a safety related postion. In fact, I was a lucky recipient of said "lottery" and called in. I would like to state that all results were nagative.
That said, my point is that if you introduce a random testing policy, be aware of the any discrimination factors even if you are only trying to "weed out" certain people.
BO55 VXR said:
I work it IT for an airline and it is well documented in the press of several incidents where pilots have been found drunk on duty, thankfully before the aircraft has even been started.
Anyhow, the company decided that it needed to introduce (random) testing (both alchohol and drugs) of the aircrew. At the point the unions got involved on grounds of discrimination as the aircrew felt they were being singled out.
Agreement was finally reached by deciding to make it a blanket policy on ALL staff on in the company, even if not in a safety related postion. In fact, I was a lucky recipient of said "lottery" and called in. I would like to state that all results were nagative.
That said, my point is that if you introduce a random testing policy, be aware of the any discrimination factors even if you are only trying to "weed out" certain people.
Anyhow, the company decided that it needed to introduce (random) testing (both alchohol and drugs) of the aircrew. At the point the unions got involved on grounds of discrimination as the aircrew felt they were being singled out.
Agreement was finally reached by deciding to make it a blanket policy on ALL staff on in the company, even if not in a safety related postion. In fact, I was a lucky recipient of said "lottery" and called in. I would like to state that all results were nagative.
That said, my point is that if you introduce a random testing policy, be aware of the any discrimination factors even if you are only trying to "weed out" certain people.
Thanks for that good point.
Avoiding discriminiation is mentioned specifically in our Alcohol and Drug Abuse Policy. We will ensure that all employees present are screened on random days.
The company I work for work in various locations where either our clients insist on random drug/alcohol testing, eg: government facilities or rail facilities, or we insist on it eg: locations where personnel are driving or operating heavy equipment. or where we believe the failure to take a prescribed drug represents a high risk to individuals health. Generally we get such testing done by independent groups, hopefully eliminating any risk of bias.
When it comes to testing we always give an individual an option prior to testing. They can either submit to testing or can decline a test in which case we expect them to remove themselves from the workplace voluntarily & sign off as sick or on vacation. If they submit to testing and fail we remove their pass to work at a given location. Maybe not as easy for yourself.
It's a problem area & I wonder what your companies liabilty would be if you allowed somebody to drive who you suspected as being over the limit who subsequently was involved in a major RTA. I would rather take my chances with an employment tribunal than in a court explaining why I'd allowed an individual with a known alcohol problem drive a company vehicle that had seriously injured somebody.
When it comes to testing we always give an individual an option prior to testing. They can either submit to testing or can decline a test in which case we expect them to remove themselves from the workplace voluntarily & sign off as sick or on vacation. If they submit to testing and fail we remove their pass to work at a given location. Maybe not as easy for yourself.
It's a problem area & I wonder what your companies liabilty would be if you allowed somebody to drive who you suspected as being over the limit who subsequently was involved in a major RTA. I would rather take my chances with an employment tribunal than in a court explaining why I'd allowed an individual with a known alcohol problem drive a company vehicle that had seriously injured somebody.
robbie_toys said:
The company I work for work in various locations where either our clients insist on random drug/alcohol testing, eg: government facilities or rail facilities, or we insist on it eg: locations where personnel are driving or operating heavy equipment. or where we believe the failure to take a prescribed drug represents a high risk to individuals health. Generally we get such testing done by independent groups, hopefully eliminating any risk of bias.
When it comes to testing we always give an individual an option prior to testing. They can either submit to testing or can decline a test in which case we expect them to remove themselves from the workplace voluntarily & sign off as sick or on vacation. If they submit to testing and fail we remove their pass to work at a given location. Maybe not as easy for yourself.
It's a problem area & I wonder what your companies liabilty would be if you allowed somebody to drive who you suspected as being over the limit who subsequently was involved in a major RTA. I would rather take my chances with an employment tribunal than in a court explaining why I'd allowed an individual with a known alcohol problem drive a company vehicle that had seriously injured somebody.
When it comes to testing we always give an individual an option prior to testing. They can either submit to testing or can decline a test in which case we expect them to remove themselves from the workplace voluntarily & sign off as sick or on vacation. If they submit to testing and fail we remove their pass to work at a given location. Maybe not as easy for yourself.
It's a problem area & I wonder what your companies liabilty would be if you allowed somebody to drive who you suspected as being over the limit who subsequently was involved in a major RTA. I would rather take my chances with an employment tribunal than in a court explaining why I'd allowed an individual with a known alcohol problem drive a company vehicle that had seriously injured somebody.
Exactly
robbie_toys said:
The company I work for work in various locations where either our clients insist on random drug/alcohol testing, eg: government facilities or rail facilities, or we insist on it eg: locations where personnel are driving or operating heavy equipment. or where we believe the failure to take a prescribed drug represents a high risk to individuals health. Generally we get such testing done by independent groups, hopefully eliminating any risk of bias.
When it comes to testing we always give an individual an option prior to testing. They can either submit to testing or can decline a test in which case we expect them to remove themselves from the workplace voluntarily & sign off as sick or on vacation. If they submit to testing and fail we remove their pass to work at a given location. Maybe not as easy for yourself.
It's a problem area & I wonder what your companies liabilty would be if you allowed somebody to drive who you suspected as being over the limit who subsequently was involved in a major RTA. I would rather take my chances with an employment tribunal than in a court explaining why I'd allowed an individual with a known alcohol problem drive a company vehicle that had seriously injured somebody.
When it comes to testing we always give an individual an option prior to testing. They can either submit to testing or can decline a test in which case we expect them to remove themselves from the workplace voluntarily & sign off as sick or on vacation. If they submit to testing and fail we remove their pass to work at a given location. Maybe not as easy for yourself.
It's a problem area & I wonder what your companies liabilty would be if you allowed somebody to drive who you suspected as being over the limit who subsequently was involved in a major RTA. I would rather take my chances with an employment tribunal than in a court explaining why I'd allowed an individual with a known alcohol problem drive a company vehicle that had seriously injured somebody.
True. You'd be saving his life in long run as well. Do your contracts of employment spell out that rolling up for work in an enbriated state is "misconduct" and could be a sackable offence.
If I rolled up for work - I'd be before the GMC on a "gross misconduct" and in the tabloids before I could say "hiccup".
But - you have a duty of care to your staff and those they are sharing the road with. This means refraining from talking to driver on mobiles, not pressurising to time and ensuring rest and subsistence breaks whilst doing their job. It also means that you could ne "vicariously responsible" if you shirked your duty to ensure drunk employee does not drive your vans and cars in your company logo in that state.
If the guy has a drink problem and you do want to give him some help as a friend as well as boss - then put fear of criminal record and 11 year declaration to insurers into him by testing and maybe suspending him from all duties whilst he seeks help if you do not want to fire him over it. Has your firm got a company doctor? Maybe he can help in this and point in the right direction for hellp?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff