Company Policy

drpaul_2

Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering about something.

My brother works for an aerospace company, and they have a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to alcohol in your system.

The law says that to work on aircraft you must be below the drink drive limit, but the company has recently updated there policy and now have zero tolerance. The managers have the authority to use a breathalyzer onsite and any reading over 0 is instant dismissal.

I just wondered how a companies policy can override the law, and if you were say dismissed for providing a breath test of just 1mg and were dismissed that you could argue this in court.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Browntoa

yes they can as long as they advise you of the new policy

pogofish

Zero Tolerance however does not mean zero alcohol - frankly its a royalty con that inevitably devalues any alcohol sanctions to a very great degree.

ohreally

Medication and mouthwashes can produce a reading, operating a policy as described may not be the way to go.

Is the equipment regularly calibrated and is the paperwork there to view?

Was this introduced with trade union consultation and agreement?

surreysaver

A company can have a policy which is more rigorous than the law.

drpaul_2

Thanks for the replies everyone.

From what I have been told, they don't breath test randomly, but only when someone is suspected of being over the limit.

It did not go through their union and the equipment is calibrated.

Up until yesterday, if you were under the drink drive limit, you were ok but now it is zero tolerance.

It was communicated to the workforce verbally in an open forum.

Thanks again

drpaul

robatwork

I think your brother needs to clarify the policy with the company, as if they apply over 0 strictly, then the 0.01 reading he may blow after some trifle, a liquer chocolate or mouthwash would mean they could sack him.

sangie595

Whilst agreeing that any test should be mediated to take account of potential false positives, I do not wish to travel on an aircraft that has been checked by someone who has been drinking alcohol. I also don't want to get in a car with that person. I'm far from being a nervous passenger, but I kind of like assuming that my plane wasn't built or maintained by people who had been out drinking the night before.

dacouch

sangie595 wrote: »

Whilst agreeing that any test should be mediated to take account of potential false positives, I do not wish to travel on an aircraft that has been checked by someone who has been drinking alcohol. I also don't want to get in a car with that person. I'm far from being a nervous passenger, but I kind of like assuming that my plane wasn't built or maintained by people who had been out drinking the night before.

Ironically the pilot is allowed (A low amount) of alcohol in their system

patman99

Op, your post said a zero tolerence policy, not a zero alcohol policy.
It could mean that instead of sending someone home without pay for the rest of the day because they are at, or just over the legal limit to drive, they will instead be dismissed.

A large number of bus operators have such a policy in place, so it is not uncommon in the workplace for employees to have random drink or drugs checks.

bap98189

drpaul wrote: »

Thanks for the replies everyone.

From what I have been told, they don't breath test randomly, but only when someone is suspected of being over the limit.

It did not go through their union and the equipment is calibrated.

Up until yesterday, if you were under the drink drive limit, you were ok but now it is zero tolerance.

It was communicated to the workforce verbally in an open forum.

I would be asking to see the details of the policy, of the measuring devices, and the exact levels of blood alcohol that are accepted. Actually no, I would be asking the union to get involved, because this is the sort of thing they should be involved in.

A no-alcohol policy is a good idea, and I doubt many people would be against the idea in principle. But there are various technical reasons why a blood alcohol level of zero is unenforcable. Rather, I would hope that they have set a very low level, say 15mg/100ml.

In addition to all the usual mouthwashes, and rum fudge, the human body sometimes produces very low levels of alcohol naturally.

Also hand-held breathalysers are not particularly accurate and their readings are not admissible in court. This is why after a positive reading at the roadside, the police have to take you to the station to either use the Intoximeter, or to have a doctor take a blood sample. These readings are those that are used in court.

These are issues the union should be ensuring the management have taken into account.