Ps To Question About Failure Of Copy...
Technology3 mins ago
law on randomly breathalizing staff
Is it legal for a company to randomly breathalize members of its staff?
My company has issued a statement saying that it will start randomly doing this.
Where do we as employees stand on this matter, can we refuse??
My company has issued a statement saying that it will start randomly doing this.
Where do we as employees stand on this matter, can we refuse??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lickquid. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3942397.stm
according to that in 2004 British airways brougfht in testing for all staff at airports.
so guess thats your answer ethel ?
according to that in 2004 British airways brougfht in testing for all staff at airports.
so guess thats your answer ethel ?
Nope - that just highlights a company that does it.
If an employee refuses, what are the legal ramifications?
This is relating to drugs, but as alcohol is a drug, it is applicable:
The law
The legal position on drug testing at work is confused. There is no direct legislation and important legal questions hinge on interpretation of a range of provisions in health and safety, employment, human rights and data protection law. The main principles behind the current legal and self-regulatory provisions appear to be as follows:
that people are entitled to a private life;
that employers are required to look to the safety of the public;
that people are entitled to dignity;
that people are entitled to proper quality standards for evidence used against them in court or disciplinary
proceedings.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/found ations/694.asp
And it looks as if employee consent is needed:
"Drug testing and your rights
Your employer may decide to test for drugs in employees. To do this, however, they need employee consent. This should normally be given where your employer has grounds for testing you under a full contractual occupational health and safety policy. "
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/HealthA ndSafetyAtWork/DG_10026594
But further:
You can't be made to take a drugs test, but if you refuse when your employer has good grounds for testing you under a proper occupational health and safety policy you may face disciplinary action, including being sacked.
Note the 'good grounds' - good grounds can't be random, surely?
If an employee refuses, what are the legal ramifications?
This is relating to drugs, but as alcohol is a drug, it is applicable:
The law
The legal position on drug testing at work is confused. There is no direct legislation and important legal questions hinge on interpretation of a range of provisions in health and safety, employment, human rights and data protection law. The main principles behind the current legal and self-regulatory provisions appear to be as follows:
that people are entitled to a private life;
that employers are required to look to the safety of the public;
that people are entitled to dignity;
that people are entitled to proper quality standards for evidence used against them in court or disciplinary
proceedings.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/found ations/694.asp
And it looks as if employee consent is needed:
"Drug testing and your rights
Your employer may decide to test for drugs in employees. To do this, however, they need employee consent. This should normally be given where your employer has grounds for testing you under a full contractual occupational health and safety policy. "
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/HealthA ndSafetyAtWork/DG_10026594
But further:
You can't be made to take a drugs test, but if you refuse when your employer has good grounds for testing you under a proper occupational health and safety policy you may face disciplinary action, including being sacked.
Note the 'good grounds' - good grounds can't be random, surely?
Ethel think youre nit picking.
i know someone whos regularly drugs tested in a factory.
and the ba was drink AND drugs testing for all uk staff.
Whatever if you wanna risk your job for a few bevvies then spend 2 years going thru courts and eu human rights etc , on the hope of getting a decision then i think youre either very determined or very stupid.
You do realise that in a company where it says in your contracty etc not allowed at work under the influence of drink , if u admit drinking you can be sacked no breathalyser needed
if you were breathalysed and it was shown to be say a tenth of the drink drive limit then possibly you could use that in a tribunal?
i know someone whos regularly drugs tested in a factory.
and the ba was drink AND drugs testing for all uk staff.
Whatever if you wanna risk your job for a few bevvies then spend 2 years going thru courts and eu human rights etc , on the hope of getting a decision then i think youre either very determined or very stupid.
You do realise that in a company where it says in your contracty etc not allowed at work under the influence of drink , if u admit drinking you can be sacked no breathalyser needed
if you were breathalysed and it was shown to be say a tenth of the drink drive limit then possibly you could use that in a tribunal?
Ethel i didn't realis you made up the European court all on your ownsome!
If you don't want to sign up to a policy including random test then don't work there. If there is a policy in your contract and you don't comply you are in breach.
And no 'good grounds' aren't random - but no-one is saying you would be fird after one random test.
If you don't want to sign up to a policy including random test then don't work there. If there is a policy in your contract and you don't comply you are in breach.
And no 'good grounds' aren't random - but no-one is saying you would be fird after one random test.
If you accept a job that has this in your contract, all well and good,
But if it is enforced after you take the job, that is different.
I would seriously consider the implications of random testing for drink and drugs - how will they do the tests? Who will do it? Are the tests reliable? What will they do with that information?
If they are blood tests then certain sectors of the public would object on religious grounds.
And not only that, but what right has the employer got to dictate what I do in my own private time? As long as I am fit and able to do my job efficiently, it is not their business what I did the night before unless they want to pay me.
It is a big issue - it is a massive invasion of privacy.
But if it is enforced after you take the job, that is different.
I would seriously consider the implications of random testing for drink and drugs - how will they do the tests? Who will do it? Are the tests reliable? What will they do with that information?
If they are blood tests then certain sectors of the public would object on religious grounds.
And not only that, but what right has the employer got to dictate what I do in my own private time? As long as I am fit and able to do my job efficiently, it is not their business what I did the night before unless they want to pay me.
It is a big issue - it is a massive invasion of privacy.
As previously mentioned, the important thing here is to define what is 'under the influence' or 'impaired'.
If you have a sherry trifle with lunch, will you be impaired that afternoon?
What about some Fruit cake with alcohol in?
A lunchtime pint of shandy?
What about some cough medicines?
You need to find out what the 'limits' are.
If you have a sherry trifle with lunch, will you be impaired that afternoon?
What about some Fruit cake with alcohol in?
A lunchtime pint of shandy?
What about some cough medicines?
You need to find out what the 'limits' are.
Exactly as long as you are able to do your job efficiently. So if you have a random test and it comes up positive and you say I had a few glasses of wine last night, but you have performe at work ok then there is no issue. If you fail more than one random test, as I said before, as they ar random then you are probably drinking too much too often and that will affect your waork and your health and your employer has a duty. Still it would only begin a disiplinary and not necessarily end in the loss of a job unless it still continued.
I agree with Ethel on this - although completely take the point about companies having policies regarding drink and drugs. My problem with this is a) how and by whom will the machines be calibrated? In my experience of the places I have worked for, they couldn't organise a p!ss up in a brewery, never mind ensure that breathalysing equipment is properly calibrated b) what type of equipment? The police road side breath testing device could be used, but that is not ever used for evidential specimens - instead they use the big computerised machine back at the nick c) what is the limit? OK, so for some jobs a limit of 0 is preferable (eg air line pilots), but for a desk bound office job a limit of 0? Some mouthwashes, chewing gum and even deserts can contain small traces of alcohol. Indeed, a couple of cigarettes in your lunch hour could register a "red" light on a roadside type testing device. Where health and safety is an issue I do see its validity and if someone is clearly drunk, fair enough. But where there are no health and safety issues, it is a gross invasion of someone's privacy to firstly test them and secondly sack them for a glass of wine with dinner the night before (and slow metabolisms and inferior breath test reading devices could do this). What next? Nicotine detectors to see if the person has smoked within the last 24 hours? Fat detectors to see whether the employee has had a crafty KFC? And will there be a right of appeal for someone sacked if they register any alcohol?
all employers take people in the understanding that the person they are taking on is responible, mature and professional in their manner.
employers also so have to take out something called "employers liability insurance" now a employer is not going to take on someone who will either turn up still drunk from a night before because they will be classed a hazard to themselves and colleagues. plus there is a possible issue of health and safety at work being breeched.
no one is going to deny any one a good night out, not even an employer as long as i does not affect your work and you don't present a obivious hazard to anyone.
but as insurance goes esp' employer liability insurance it isn't cheap it will cost your employer lots of money and will probably close down his business in the extreme because of someones stupidity.
use a bit of common sense. would you employ someone would could jeopardise your company or bring it in to disrepute.
as sticking their nose in to your business, if you are going to be detrimental to their business, they have every to look after themselves first, you are actually breaking the health and safety at work laws by turning up to work drunk and these can have severe criminal penaties attached in some cases..SO DON'T BE A MORON
employers also so have to take out something called "employers liability insurance" now a employer is not going to take on someone who will either turn up still drunk from a night before because they will be classed a hazard to themselves and colleagues. plus there is a possible issue of health and safety at work being breeched.
no one is going to deny any one a good night out, not even an employer as long as i does not affect your work and you don't present a obivious hazard to anyone.
but as insurance goes esp' employer liability insurance it isn't cheap it will cost your employer lots of money and will probably close down his business in the extreme because of someones stupidity.
use a bit of common sense. would you employ someone would could jeopardise your company or bring it in to disrepute.
as sticking their nose in to your business, if you are going to be detrimental to their business, they have every to look after themselves first, you are actually breaking the health and safety at work laws by turning up to work drunk and these can have severe criminal penaties attached in some cases..SO DON'T BE A MORON
PS , i know this is dragging out but even presciption medicines can affect your work and even employment status because of health and safety laws. plus two words "compensation culture" if you turn up drunk and cause a injury to a colleague or vice - versa. your employer is more than likely to have HSA investigate them and their business. so it's more safer to employe a reliable upstanding person.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News16 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
News29 mins ago
Power Of Social Media Put To Good Use
News30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.