Gross misconduct for absence due to being drunk

lauraf2311

My partner missed work on Friday due to being too intoxicated from the night before he did call in work and advise of this before his shift started he has returned to work today and received a final written warning for gross misconduct and also his rate per hour has been reduced and is this core f as he was not intoxicated at work should he not receive a verbal or written for his absence only 

Hasbeen

lauraf2311 said:

My partner missed work on Friday due to being too intoxicated from the night before he did call in work and advise of this before his shift started he has returned to work today and received a final written warning for gross misconduct and also his rate per hour has been reduced and is this core f as he was not intoxicated at work should he not receive a verbal or written for his absence only 

Depends on how many time he did not attend work before and called in. Also how many previous warnings have been given to make this a final.

KatrinaWaves

It would be interesting to see the policy but I feel absence due to irresponsibility would be treated more harshly than someone who was absent through illness or unforeseen circumstances. Seems like common sense... 

ACG

Sounds like they are trying to push him out. 
Has he been there for 2 years? 
A company has to follow certain procedures, that involves a disciplinary meeting before investigating and then deciding on the outcome which is supposed to take into account the information provided in the disciplinary meeting. They had already decided on the outcome before he turned up. 

lauraf2311

He has no previous disciplinary actions 

Undervalued

ACG said:

Sounds like they are trying to push him out. 
Has he been there for 2 years? 
A company has to follow certain procedures, that involves a disciplinary meeting before investigating and then deciding on the outcome which is supposed to take into account the information provided in the disciplinary meeting. They had already decided on the outcome before he turned up. 

There are no longer statutory procedures that must be followed to the letter. They are only legally required to make a reasonable effort to conduct a fair process. Following the ACAS guidelines is often regarded as the safest way of doing that but an alternative process can be perfectly acceptable too.

They are quite entitled to consider the reason why an employee was unable to come to work. Getting so drunk that you are not capable and / or legal to work the next day could certainly be considered gross misconduct, even for a first offence.

Yes, they should have given him a proper opportunity to explain his conduct and any mitigation. However, if there was no mitigation or reasonable excuse (it is hard to think of one) then dismissal is certainly within the range of sanctions a reasonable employer might consider. That is all the law requires.

TBagpuss

It sounds as though they have treated it as unauthorised absence (which is is, unless when he called in it was approved) 
In the first instance he should look at the work handbook / manual to see whether they followed their own procedure BUT even if they didn't, all that is likely to mean is that if he has further issues and is dismissed, he might be able to claim they failed to follow a fair process. However, that wouldn't usually mean that he would be reinstated or paid any significant damages - it might mean that his employer had to go back and go through the proper process or might mean that he got paid any notice (e.g. if they dismissed him summarily, he might be entitled to payment of his notice period, or to pay for the few days it would have taken to follow the correct process - i.e. to be put into the position he would have been in if they had followed the process.
It sounds as though his employer took the view that being too drunk to show up for work was gross misconduct. To a degree, employers get to determine what they see as gross misconduct, so it would be very hard to argue they were wrong to see it that way. However, they have chosen to give him a warning rather than dismissing him immediately, so as long as he doesn't do anything else daft he should be OK. 
The different rate will depend on what his contract says but as long as he is still getting NMW or above it is unlikely that they are in breach of the law, and if he continues to work at the lower rate he will be deemed to have accepted it. They would however still have to pay him at the previous rate for any work done before they told him of the change, and depending on the wording of his contract may have to give him notice of any change.

ACG

Undervalued said:

ACG said:

Sounds like they are trying to push him out. 
Has he been there for 2 years? 
A company has to follow certain procedures, that involves a disciplinary meeting before investigating and then deciding on the outcome which is supposed to take into account the information provided in the disciplinary meeting. They had already decided on the outcome before he turned up. 

There are no longer statutory procedures that must be followed to the letter. They are only legally required to make a reasonable effort to conduct a fair process. Following the ACAS guidelines is often regarded as the safest way of doing that but an alternative process can be perfectly acceptable too.

They are quite entitled to consider the reason why an employee was unable to come to work. Getting so drunk that you are not capable and / or legal to work the next day could certainly be considered gross misconduct, even for a first offence.

Yes, they should have given him a proper opportunity to explain his conduct and any mitigation. However, if there was no mitigation or reasonable excuse (it is hard to think of one) then dismissal is certainly within the range of sanctions a reasonable employer might consider. That is all the law requires.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. 
But it could be that he was spiked? 
I know when I have been to house parties, measures do not really take place it is just someone measuring shorts and so what someone thinks is a single could be a treble. 
Plenty of reasons, still arguably the persons fault, but they have just made a decision without on the face of it speaking to them. 

Tigsteroonie

ACG said:

I know when I have been to house parties, measures do not really take place it is just someone measuring shorts and so what someone thinks is a single could be a treble. 

You don't have to drink them. It's not like you say "Barkeep, please pour a single down my throat" and said barkeep pours a treble down your throat. There is an element of being responsible for your own intoxication.

KatrinaWaves

Oh first using your phone is indicative of a mental health issue and now a hangover is a mental health issue! 

Jsacker please list the things which aren’t a mental health issue. I feel the list is shorter... 

seatbeltnoob2

I sympathise with the employer, if employee decides to get drunk on a thursday to the point they're so hungover and drunk that they cant go into work the following day then they have a drinking problem and probably need to quit.

I have a small business and heavily dependant on the punctuality and reliability of workers, I wouldn't tolerate this.