Policy problem, help!
![bgrimes](http://blr-hrforums.elasticbeanstalk.com/plugins/DefaultAvatars/design/BlueAvatar.jpg)
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-24-02 AT 11:03AM (CST)[/font][p]I don't know what to do....We have a Drug and Alcohol policy, in fact, it is the ONLY written and 'signed-off'on policy we have. Our CEO won't distribute a handbook. Last week, at lunchtime (off premise) a group of employees entered a restaurant and saw two other employees at a table with a beer in front of them. One of the employees lifted the glass and drank, the other just had the glass in front of them. The 'group' walked past them to their own table. One in the group is a known 'instigator' here at the company. If the 'instigator' has it in for you, she won't let up til she takes you down. The 'instigator' has very good job skills, is smart, her supervisor wouldn't want to lose her. The 'instigator' has it in for one of the employees at the 'beer table'.
After all had returned from lunch, the 'instigator' got out the POLICY and ran up to the supervisor of the ONE employee she witnessed 'swallowing' beer. The supervisor said it "did not apply to drinking at lunch"...it "was none of her business". The 'instigator' then came to me. I asked her why she had not mentioned the 'other' person at the table with a beer. She said she "didn't see her actually 'drink' the beer"..."it could have belonged to someone else". I asked her to what end she was making this complaint...was it a personal vendetta or was she genuinely concered about the company. I really think she was just out to 'get' the 'beer drinker'. The rumor mill has spread this all over the company. The employees will be waiting to see what the company does. I of course told upper management about it, and they don't see it as a big deal. They want to do nothing. The 'beer drinker' did not report back to work 'under the influence' or impaired by the beer. I have knowledge that other higher level employees have had a beer at lunch. The 'beer drinker' could come back and site an instance where her own supervisor and the IS mgr. had a beer at lunch with no reprimands. I am concerned about precidence. The policy reads: THIS POLICY STRICTLY PROHIBITS EMPLOYEES REPORTING TO WORK AFTER USING OR CONSUMING, OR BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. The upper management told me to "do nothing". I have not 'investigated' or talked to any of the people involved because noone thinks it's anything to worry about. What would YOU do??? Also, the 'instigator' has come back three times to check on what we're doing about it, I told her it will be addressed discreetly, and she (instigator) will probably not know of the outcome. She wrote it all up on paper and wants it kept in her file. She also said she would add the incident to her 'journal'. She is evidently keeping track of things to use against the company at some future time....and she would....she's very agressive. Please advise.
After all had returned from lunch, the 'instigator' got out the POLICY and ran up to the supervisor of the ONE employee she witnessed 'swallowing' beer. The supervisor said it "did not apply to drinking at lunch"...it "was none of her business". The 'instigator' then came to me. I asked her why she had not mentioned the 'other' person at the table with a beer. She said she "didn't see her actually 'drink' the beer"..."it could have belonged to someone else". I asked her to what end she was making this complaint...was it a personal vendetta or was she genuinely concered about the company. I really think she was just out to 'get' the 'beer drinker'. The rumor mill has spread this all over the company. The employees will be waiting to see what the company does. I of course told upper management about it, and they don't see it as a big deal. They want to do nothing. The 'beer drinker' did not report back to work 'under the influence' or impaired by the beer. I have knowledge that other higher level employees have had a beer at lunch. The 'beer drinker' could come back and site an instance where her own supervisor and the IS mgr. had a beer at lunch with no reprimands. I am concerned about precidence. The policy reads: THIS POLICY STRICTLY PROHIBITS EMPLOYEES REPORTING TO WORK AFTER USING OR CONSUMING, OR BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES. The upper management told me to "do nothing". I have not 'investigated' or talked to any of the people involved because noone thinks it's anything to worry about. What would YOU do??? Also, the 'instigator' has come back three times to check on what we're doing about it, I told her it will be addressed discreetly, and she (instigator) will probably not know of the outcome. She wrote it all up on paper and wants it kept in her file. She also said she would add the incident to her 'journal'. She is evidently keeping track of things to use against the company at some future time....and she would....she's very agressive. Please advise.
Comments
Your policy should include the phrase "under the influence of"
One more thought, incidents of this type should be handled using discretion and treating this with the utmost confidentiality. This should be a private matter between the empoloyee and the company. Period.
Firstly, drinking alcohol or even taking prescribed medications does have an influence on an indvidual to some degree. The extent of the influence is what is important. So, just saying "under the influence" is insufficient and vague.
For alcohol and prescribed medication you want to say something like "reporting to work or performing duties under the influence of alcohol or prescribed medication that impairs functioning on the job."
And for illegal substances, just ban them out right. Seperate them from alcohol and prescribed medications.
I loved your comment! I think this stuff happens all the time to all of us.
XXX will not tolerate the presence of alcohol or illegally used substances or inhalants in the employee's system at levels sufficient to be called positive in accordance with accepted testing protocols, or the use, possession, sale, offering or trading of controlled substances, inhalants, or unauthorized use of alcohol on XXX premises..."
Hope this is helpful.
If you recall many states have it set, as it relates to "DUI", at an aribtrary .1 Blood Alcohol Content; while others have it .08 BAC. One state doesn't have any standard. So, which protcol do you use and is that really relevent to establishing an impairment on the job resulting from drinking alcohol? What if there is no demonstrable impairment with someone who has a .1 BAC?
These are my concerns with using the standards for drunk driving allegations in the work place.
Employees of XXX who are 21 years of age or older are allowed to drink responsibly at XXX if they are off the clock, and out of uniform. Those who purchase alcohol on any company property where it is available will be held responsible to be a best behavior employee/customer. No one is allowed to be in the parking lot consuming personal alcohol. Employees must discontinue alcohol consumption no less than four hours before the start of their next shift. In no case may an employee report to work with an alcohol level of 0.05 grams/210 liters of breath or above, and/or a urine level of 0.08% or above. Refusal to participate in required drug/alcohol testing is a violation of policy and will result in termination of employment.
We have on-site random and reasonable suspicion testing. If an employee smells of alcohol they are tested (breath) then sent home. If the test comes back below the above levels, we reimburse for time lost, and warn the employee not to come to work smelling of alcohol. Nothing's foolproof.
2. There doesn't appear to any means of determining whether the employee was impaired.
3. A policy that isn't enforced is worse than no policy at all. If it is disregarded in some circumstances and enforced in others, it could be construed as discriminatory.
4. Either put teeth in the policy or rip it up. Ask your upper management what they will do when an employee comes to work acting as if he/she may be impaired. And this will happen eventually.
Good luck.
>drinking? Could it have been a non-alcoholic beer?
>2. There doesn't appear to any means of determining whether the
>employee was impaired.
>3. A policy that isn't enforced is worse than no policy at all. If
>it is disregarded in some circumstances and enforced in others, it
>could be construed as discriminatory.
>4. Either put teeth in the policy or rip it up. Ask your upper
>management what they will do when an employee comes to work acting as
>if he/she may be impaired. And this will happen eventually.
>
>Good luck.
HRQueen, you made some very good points....I wish I had thought to ask the tattletale if she could tell 'O'douls' from 'O'budweiser'.
First is your substance abuse policy. Your company needs to make business decisions. It can totally ban alcohol as some of the other writers have suggested. You may also use the concept of being impaired through the use of alcohol. If you use this approach, I suggest that you consider using a BAC level as some of the writers have suggested. The reason why the States use BAC levels is because it is too difficult to prove "impairment." A BAC level equates to a presumption of being impaired or under the influence. I personally like .08 because that is what the State of Missouri uses to presume a drive is impaired. However, you are free to use .04 or some other level. Using a BAC level would most likely allow employees to have a beer at lunch if they were off the company's property (I have assumed you would keep the prohibition about consuming alcohol on company property without permision). Be advised, however, that the Court of Appeals for Eastern Missouri recently held that an employee was entitled to unemployment compensation even though he was fired for testing positive for marijuana because the employer could not prove that the employee was impaired at work.
Second, your company needs to decide if it is willing to enforce its policies. If it wants to pick and choose, then management is making a business decision that it is willing to accept greater risks of litigation. Another thought is that the policy does not have to require discharge. It can simply state that the company will take appropriate action upto and including termination.
Third, if your company decides to have a policy, it should publicize it to the employees. How will they know what is unacceptable conduct? Again, you may have difficulting with the Division of Employment Security if you discharge an employee for violating a secret policy.
Fourth, you have an employee problem with the "informer." You have a wide range of options available. You can "coach" her to mind her business. In the alternative, you can listen to Paul Simon's song "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover" for ideas on empowering her to find a position elsewhere.
In my experience, that often shuts them up for awhile, at least.