Follow your policy on attendance or utilization of vacation time / PTO ect. If this EE followed your procedure for calling in, I don't see where you have any grounds for further disciplinary action only based on a phone call and someone "perceiving" or even if the EE admitted that he was drunk. Now, if the EE had reported to work intoxicated, then we would probably have more to talk about.
If he followed all of your policies and procedures, and his overall attendance is okay, then I wouldn't make an issue out of it. One question...how do you know he was drunk?
The skydiving analogy is interesting but I don't know that it exactly fits the scenario.
If you get hurt skydiving, that would be considered an accident and likely out of your control. In the above situation, unless the ee was being forced to drink or was called to work on short notice, I would say he had some control over the situation and showed little regard for the importance of being to work on time, ready to go.
My advice: don't fire him but note the incident as an attendance issue.
Follow attendance policy. Even if he admitted to being drunk, if you call him on it, it will be because he swallowed too much Nyquil. Unless you have a drug/alcohol test to back you up, perceiving someone as drunk and following through with disciplinary action on same is very dangerous territory.
Leslie, We had a similar event. Council informed that an admission was enough; that we didn't need the alcohol test to back us up. Our policy reads:
#3 Employees shall immediately report his/her inability to report to work and the reason to his/her supervisor.
#4 Employees shall report for and remain at work only in a fit physical and mental condition.
If he reported off and admitted being drunk, he definitely followed both work rules. But I would still council the employee in writing and notify him that the next incident will not be excused and may result in termination.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-14-04 AT 01:58PM (CST)[/font][br][br]And just to confuse things, Coricidin HPB (or is it HBP) is being used (actually abused) by kids to have a trip.
Obviously he could have also called in and said he was sick - but since he was drunk he prbably wasn't thinking straight except that he shouldn't drive and attempt to work... thank goodness he didn't come in, and if this presents itself as a pattern then your attendance policy and your substance abuse policy kicks in
Our company is a manufacturing company with a large percentage of entry level workers, who I know party hard when they're not at work. I specifically tell them during their Intro Briefing that they must not report to work under any circumstances if they're drunk or if they've been drinking. To do so would result in their termination. To make my point, I tell them that they should call in sick if they've been drinking. They will then be subject to our normal attendance procedures. If their absences become a problem for this or any other reason, they will be subject to termination.
One exception to this policy is if the individual is in a drug/alcohol rehab program. Given the rules of the program, the individual may be subject to immediate termination whether at work or not. But as has already been mentioned, how would you know the employee has been drinking if he/she didn't self-confess? Someone with the flu and on medication can sound a lot like a drunk.
I still wonder what "called in drunk" meant. Moral judgements aside, this should be treated the same as any other attendance 'call in'. It's the equivalent of calling in sick. To those who would say he had some control over whether he got drunk and might not have control over getting sick; I would ask, What if the employee called in and said he was in the hot dog eating contest last night and puked all night long? He couldn't come in because he was sick....and certainly caused his own illness due to his arguably questionable activities the prior night stuffing his face with hotdogs. Drinking alcohol is just as legal as eating hot dogs. The difference is the insertion of moral judgement into the equation.
We recently termed an employee who "called in drunk" three times, but reason for term was "failure to follow policy". He would call 30 minutes to an hour after the start of his shift, tell his supervisor he's drunk and can't come in. Policy requires employees call in at least an hour before the scheduled shift.
Comments
If you get hurt skydiving, that would be considered an accident and likely out of your control. In the above situation, unless the ee was being forced to drink or was called to work on short notice, I would say he had some control over the situation and showed little regard for the importance of being to work on time, ready to go.
My advice: don't fire him but note the incident as an attendance issue.
We had a similar event. Council informed that an admission was enough; that we didn't need the alcohol test to back us up. Our policy reads:
#3 Employees shall immediately report his/her inability to report to work and the reason to his/her supervisor.
#4 Employees shall report for and remain at work only in a fit physical and mental condition.
If he reported off and admitted being drunk, he definitely followed both work rules. But I would still council the employee in writing and notify him that the next incident will not be excused and may result in termination.
I'd still like to know if this ee SAID they were too drunk to come in or what.. .you gotta give the guy or gal a point for honesty. .
One exception to this policy is if the individual is in a drug/alcohol rehab program. Given the rules of the program, the individual may be subject to immediate termination whether at work or not. But as has already been mentioned, how would you know the employee has been drinking if he/she didn't self-confess? Someone with the flu and on medication can sound a lot like a drunk.