About to be fired for gross misconduct...need advise

Genuineguy03

OK. Unfortunately, because it was on work premises then there nothing anyone can do. As you already know, drinking on work premises is gross misconduct and more likely than not ends in summary dismissal.

If it hadn't been on work premises then you would have stood a better chance of not losing your job with a bit if help from us here.

Totally shocking how occupational health can turn round and say alcoholism is not an illness, when its well documented as being an illness under mental health. Or even a secondary illness brought on by mental health problems.

Also, when you said all the doors are locked and you can't leave the premises, what about the fire exits?

ds383

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

OK. Unfortunately, because it was on work premises then there nothing anyone can do. As you already know, drinking on work premises is gross misconduct and more likely than not ends in summary dismissal.

If it hadn't been on work premises then you would have stood a better chance of not losing your job with a bit if help from us here.

Totally shocking how occupational health can turn round and say alcoholism is not an illness, when its well documented as being an illness under mental health. Or even a secondary illness brought on by mental health problems.

Also, when you said all the doors are locked and you can't leave the premises, what about the fire exits?

Ah, ok. We're not supposed to go outside at all even including going out the fire exit during the time that the store is closed unless it's an emergency in the case of fire, robbery etc.

nicechap

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

.....

If it hadn't been on work premises then you would have stood a better chance of not losing your job with a bit if help from us here.

.....

As you are allegedly a HR professional with 10 years experience, and no doubt know the industry, union base and everything about this case, you will know the bit you wrote is nonsense.

Genuineguy03

Not nonsense at all. Drinking off work premises is not gross misconduct, going into work under influence also isn't when they are aware of his illness (alcoholism) as dismissal for it would but them on a collision course with the equality act, and they'd have to go for dismissal on capability grounds. But even then they'd have to show they gave him as much support as reasonably possible.

Also I never said I was a HR professional (you and your assumptions... You naughty person). I said I had over ten years advising people on employment issues and employment law" along with other areas of law too. I've never worked in HR, though I have been at the top level of company senior management. And to honest, HR professionals that work in company hr departments aren't exactly the best at employment law. But then that's not their primary purpose.

nicechap

Priceless.

I’d love to see you argue alcolism is a protected character cat an employment tribunal.

No doubt you think the pilot arrested at Heathrow airport this month for being drunk won’t be charged with gross misconduct as he didn’t drink on the aircraft or crew room.

You really are a very dangerous troll posting your nonsense on here for your own amusement - however senior you delude yourself to have been.

Genuineguy03

Making assumptions yet again. First off all your forgetting a very important key fact, that being mental illness (a protected characteristic) being the primary contributory factor to his alcoholism. Also alcoholism is also defined as a mental illness when there is underlying mental illnesses that contribute to a person level of alcohol consumption.

As for pilots. Sorry but that's a different ball game as that's aviation law and criminal law, not just employment law, and its not like the op here was in control of a vehicle, let alone airplane full off passengers. Plus there's no suggestion the pilot you referred too was an alcoholic, or sufferred any protected characteristics. Though due to criminal law and aviation law, he'd not be allowed to fly again anyway and loose his job as a result of resulting conviction not and having his license taken off him (like a courier, taxi driver or HGV driver would), not as a direct result of the act of being drunk par se.. Except if their were no underlying protect characteristics, in which case he could be dismissed prior to conviction.

You really did pick a poor comparison for you attempt to flame and troll me!

ohreally

Does your employer have a substance abuse policy? I've dealt with similar cases and first thing I would suggest is a self referral to the occuuhealth provider, ask for help, and get your hand on relevant policy's.

Comms69

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Making assumptions yet again. First off all your forgetting a very important key fact, that being mental illness (a protected characteristic) - You cannot know that. being ill is not a protected characteristic being the primary contributory factor to his alcoholism. Also alcoholism is also defined as a mental illness when there is underlying mental illnesses that contribute to a person level of alcohol consumption.

As for pilots. Sorry but that's a different ball game as that's aviation law and criminal law, not just employment law - regardless though, under your logic - whilst he may be charged criminally - his employment could not be terminated based upon gross misconduct , and its not like the op here was in control of a vehicle, let alone airplane full off passengers. Plus there's no suggestion the pilot you referred too was an alcoholic, or sufferred any protected characteristics. Though due to criminal law and aviation law, he'd not be allowed to fly again anyway and loose his job as a result of resulting conviction not and having his license taken off him (like a courier, taxi driver or HGV driver would), not as a direct result of the act of being drunk par se.. Except if their were no underlying protect characteristics, in which case he could be dismissed prior to conviction.

You really did pick a poor comparison for you attempt to flame and troll me!

Your advice is dangerous.


being drunk at work IS gross misconduct.

Ozzuk

Genuineguy03, you are obviously trying to help but I wouldn't give the OP false hope. He's done this before, and even if he hadn't there is virtually no chance this isn't gross misconduct. The company may take into account mitigating circumstances, but ultimately - especially with that level of alcohol he is putting himself at risk and potentially others.

I can't see any tribunal overturning a decision to dismiss - on balance, is it reasonable to dismiss someone who has be found drunk twice? Of course it is.

Comms69

Ozzuk wrote: »

Genuineguy03, you are obviously trying to help but I wouldn't give the OP false hope. He's done this before, and even if he hadn't there is virtually no chance this isn't gross misconduct. The company may take into account mitigating circumstances, but ultimately - especially with that level of alcohol he is putting himself at risk and potentially others.

I can't see any tribunal overturning a decision to dismiss - on balance, is it reasonable to dismiss someone who has be found drunk twice? Of course it is.

I agree in particular about the amount he drank. Whilst no level of alcohol is acceptable; I know that many managers have discretion around a pint with lunch for example.


5 shots is way over the drink drive limit, which I appreciate isn't a recognised factor in employment, but certainly an indication of drunkenness.