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

ds383

Exodi wrote: »

Haha I always had it in the back of my mind that you were a troll but could never say for sure.

Cheers for the laughs!:beer:

I wish I was trolling, but glad you find your fellow human being on the verge of suicide amusing :beer:

Savvy_Sue

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

its not a crime to drink in the work place or turn up intoxicated to work, unless your in control of a vehicle, even then an employer can not discipline you if its your own vehicle (not used for work purposes) and your license isn't essential to your employment (which would be a different legal scenario to that of the OPs).

Trust me, if I or any of my colleagues turned up to work 'under the influence', how we'd got there would be completely irrelevant. It's stated in our contracts that we will not attend work in that state. therefore our employer would discipline us. It's happened: suspension, investigation, and I think the person has always resigned prior to the disciplinary.

If we are taking prescribed medication which might affect our performance, we are required to declare it. So no "oh I didn't realise the alcohol would interact with the stuff my GP prescribed".

In a way, I find it quite sad, because it's a very supportive employer. If you came clean and said "I'm struggling" you'd be encouraged to get help and supported in working towards recovery, but you wouldn't be allowed to work while intoxicated.

Les79

ds383 wrote: »

That's a really good idea. I should give them control of my debit card, that way I'd have no way of buying alcohol at all.

Last time I'm going to advise; you ideally need to go to AA. If you have any fears about what it may be like etc then feel free to PM me and I'll give you a rough idea (people are usually reluctant due to nerves, or because they feel that they won't associate with people there).


You'll learn many different coping mechanisms. You'll also probably learn why giving your parents control of your debit card is more of a TOOL than an actual fix, as if you are anything like me then this is no barrier to stopping.


You did mention another charity/company as well, though, so hopefully that will be just as good or better!


Don't f**k around with this any longer. Get it sorted.

Parking_Eyerate

@Genuineguy03

With respect, I think you are significantly over interpreting and simplifying the case cited by Ozzuk and making unsubstantiated assumptions about the OP’s circumstances and theoretical prospects.

Notably, the case summary Ozzuk linked to makes no mention whatsoever of the location of alcohol drinking. The project’s disciplinary procedure cited “working under the influence of alcohol as an example of gross misconduct” and, from what I can see, that wasn’t questioned.

Further, at the bottom of the case summary, under ‘additional resources’ there is a hyperlink related to the question of whether alcohol addiction is covered by the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010. If you read the link through page it would appear that, unless it was caused by medically prescribed drugs, it is not covered. In view of this could you clarify how a protected characteristic defence might have been put forward?

The case in question had multiple factors such as alleged bullying, stressful work and disparity of treatment between different employees. The summary also states that in the decision it was mentioned that the project “should have made enquiries” and should “have investigated” certain circumstances of the person/situation in question. Had the project conducted more thorough enquiries and investigations the decision might possibly have gone the other way.

Lastly, I don’t think the OP has said what his job role is and what sort of environment he works in. It could be that he comes into contact with the public, or drives a forklift truck or lifts heavy items, or any number of things. It could be that he works in an environment where being under the influence of alcohol is dangerous or could diminish his employer’s reputation.

In short, I don’t think it is reasonable to say that if the OP hadn’t drunk on work premises and hadn’t had previous warnings that it would definitely be unfair dismissal.

Casey1709

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

its not a crime to drink in the work place or turn up intoxicated to work, unless your in control of a vehicle, even then an employer can not discipline you if its your own vehicle (not used for work purposes) and your license isn't essential to your employment (which would be a different legal scenario to that of the OPs). therefore criminal law doesn't apply here nor does aviation law. Where as for the pilot, both aviation law and criminal law do apply. So its a very poor counter arguement, in fact, its an "embarrassing" comparison for nicechap to make.

You might be happy to be treated by a drunk surgeon but I wouldn’t be.

Les79

Casey1709 wrote: »

You might be happy to be treated by a drunk surgeon but I wouldn’t be.

Well, technically an alcoholic surgeon would probably do a better job whilst at least slightly intoxicated because of their dependency to it.


But that's just an educated guess!

Genuineguy03

Oh for God sake. Reread the thread. All of you. You'll see I said to the op there was nothing we can do to help in my second post. And I've maintain that all along.

Everything else's is based intially in response to nicechap post where he replied to part of my second post as nonesical. When in fact it is, as shown in the tribunal case referenced, not as simple to dismiss someone for gross misconduct for drinking or intoxication when its related to an underlying protected characteristics as it would be to dismiss someone with no know protect characteristics that the employer is aware off. However the because the OP drank on premises, its gross misconduct regardless. as its not the volume off drink he drank or level if his intoxication or the alcohol reacting to the medication that's the matters here, its the act of drinking premises alone that he faces dismissal for. Hence why I said it be different if it was off premises, especially if he'd had no previous warnings. I can't be clearer than that, yet some still think its fair to dismiss someone for gross misconduct for being intoxicated, when the employer knows that the employee suffers alcohol misuse due to underlying protect characteristics and when they didn't drink on work premises.

So its purely that act of drinking on premises, not the resulting intoxication, that he's being disciplined for, nothing else. Just that one act alone. Which we have all known since he replied to my question as to whether it was on work premises.Everything is purely based on if he hadn't drank on work premises and hadn't had previous warnings for intoxication - wish I can not be any clearer about. If you can't see the difference between the two different scanerios, then I'm am sorry, but I simply can't be any clearer to you.

As for drunk doctor. Again theres legislation and regulations that apply to the medical profession just like in aviation, that don't apply to the op or the rest of us. Though I do know that was made in good humour.

Parking_Eyerate

Sorry, I thought you said that you are happy to debate points of law.

Just to refresh on your focal point - as far as I can see the case summary cited by Ozzuk did not discuss the location of alcohol drinking as a relevant defence. This suggests to me that it wasn’t raised by the claimant or it was found not to be rmaterial. So I really do not see why you are adamant that it is a critical consideration. Can you please clarify? In my opinion the critical act is “working under the influence of alcohol”, irrespective of where the alcohol might have been consumed.

Genuineguy03

@parking eyerate.

Its not the location on its own. If he drank off site, and came into work intoxicated, when his drinking is caused by an underlying protected characteristics. Then the employer has to take that in to account and offer support and at must a warning. To goto straight to dismissal without any previous warnings and failing to take into account his protective characteristics would be unfair dismissal.

As it is in the ops case their were two previous instances, he was on a final. Therefore the employer can sure they have acted reasonably and been supportive and therefore in his dismissal (should it come to that).

Off course if he hadn't drank on premises, and had only 1-2 pints, glasses, then there would have been a chance the employer might have accepted that it was an unintended reaction to his medication that gave the impression he was drunk, that's all hinted at in my second which nicechap said was nonsense. But it was on premises, its likely caught on CCTV or witnessed by others. So that and the fact he on previous warning means its pointless to even go down that route. As his previous warninhs mean they can just dismiss him purely for drinking on premises regardless of protected characteristics or it being reaction to his meds. If weren't for previous warnings its likely with our help he'd have got away with just a warning and maybe offer of time off to seek help etc.

Genuineguy03

Just to add to my last post (still can qoute or edit for some reason)

There's also the element of implied duty of care. And could be easily argue the employer breach the contract term of implied duty of care, by dismissing the OP without offering support and there not taking into account his protected characteristics and breach their duty if care, making the dismissal unfair

There was a case a few years back, where in employee for walmsworth council was dismissed for drinking on duty, there was no protective characteristics, however the tribunal deemed the dismissal unfair purely because the council had provided copies of the alcohol/drinking policy. I mentioning case as it demonstrates how easy an employer can loose, even protective characteristics.

I know a lot of people get dismissed just like that and the employer doesn't think twice about it. But it takes us for one person to make a claim and can easily find themselves in the wrong.