Bosses at risk from Rugby World Cup drinkers

- Lunch time matches and post match hangovers could hinder productivity

- Drinking problems may have to be treated as medical complaints

- Testing for substances could breach human rights

Employers looking to crack down on staff whose work suffers because of drinking sprees during the Rugby World Cup next month, need to tread carefully to avoid claims of unfair dismissal or even breaches of human rights, warns Consult GEE, a leading provider of employment law and HR advisory services.

With the Rugby World Cup kicking off on 8 September, Consult GEE warns that, although productivity might diminish as a result of staff having a few drinks while watching matches during the working day or from hangovers from the night before, employers will need to be cautious in how they subsequently handle employees.

Stuart Chamberlain, employment law expert with Consult GEE, says: ìAlthough the UK has moved a long way from its ëliquid lunchí culture, many employers are surprised to find they cannot dismiss someone for coming into the office drunk or with a hangover. Dismissal has to be a last resort, with employers forced into a lengthy process of trying to help their staff rather than disciplining them.î

ìDrinking is often part and parcel of watching rugby, so employers can perhaps expect to see staff with hangovers the day after a match. It is not just England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland fans either. With so many different nationalities working in the City, South Africans, Australian, Argentines, Kiwis and many other fans could all be heading to the pub to see their teams in action.î

Where employment contracts expressly forbid staff from alcohol consumption during working hours, the disciplinary process is a lot simpler, but very few UK companies take such a tough stance.

Adds Stuart Chamberlain: ìIt is only when an employer has taken all necessary measures to help their employee, has warned them of disciplinary action and the employee still continues to drink, or take drugs, that there will be a strong case for dismissal. However, until then, the business has to quietly suffer the poor performance levels that an employee with a drinking or drug problem would normally have.î

ìWhile it would be unfair to label all rugby fans as having a drink problem, there is no doubt businesses will suffer during the World Cup due to alcohol consumption amongst some staff.î

Many jobs do require sober staff to fulfil them on health and safety grounds, such as those involving the operation of machinery or a driving role. Employers have a duty to protect all employees from harm and, in such environments, allowing a member of staff to continue under the influence of drugs or alcohol could put staff at risk.

However, even in these circumstances dismissal cannot be rushed into, warns Stuart Chamberlain: ìEmployers cannot fire them on the spot, even where there is a health and safety issue. They should stop them from the work they are doing, send them home or move them to a danger free role and conduct an investigation.î

Consult GEE points out that employers faced with staff that have a drinking or drug problem should offer to help them by internal counselling or through outside help, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or their GP.

Stuart Chamberlain says: ìStaff with problems such as these have to be treated in the same way as those with a medical or psychological condition in terms of support.î

ìIf a workerís performance is regularly hindered by a hangover or lunchtime drinking and it is not a health and safety concern, employers should provide them with help and advise them that not getting help could lead to disciplinary action, which could result in dismissal.î

ìFailing to show you have tried to help them, before it gets to the point of disciplinary action being taken, will be seen by a tribunal as not acting fairly.î



Tests
Testing employees for alcohol and drugs is rare in the UK, as there are potential dangers with the practice.

Stuart Chamberlain explains: ìUnless all staff consent to random tests, employers could face an action on human rights grounds for conducting tests. It could be viewed as an infringement of liberty, the argument being that what they do in their own time is not the employerís concern.î