Alcohol on the Breath

Mel in CO

Please bear with me during my question, I did research the archive files concerning this topic however I was unable to find the answer that I need. This morning, one of our supervisors smelled of alcohol. His speech was a bit slurred and his behavior was a belligerent toward his supervisor and myself when asking him some questions concerning projects that he has been working on.

My question lies with if we can or cannot confront him about him smelling like alcohol. Our policy is very vague at this point and does not address the issue or our actions if we smell alcohol on someone’s breath. All we state in our policy is basically that the use of illegal drugs or alcohol is not permitted while conducting business-related activities. We utilize the “business-related activities” statement because many times our employees travel for our company. We also do not drug test employees during the pre-employment stage nor do we drug test employees randomly after hire. We also do not state in our policy anything concerning a drug test if we suspect if someone is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at work. This really has never been an issue for this organization over the past 20 years of business – of course until now.

Now, going forward we are going to enact some policy changes that address this issue however what are my rights at this point? Do I have any rights until I clarify our policy? Can we confront the employee concerning the smell of alcohol on his breath? What if it is very obvious that this person is impaired on the job? Before I precede any further, I would like to gain some advice. Thank you.

Don D

I won't ream you out, although others will, for not having any policy that addresses these issues. I do feel that even though you don't have specific written policies addressing randoms or reasonable suspicion drug/alcohol testing, you aren't precluded from dealing with it. I don't know the wisdom of trying to send him for a alcohol screen since you have no policy addressing this. If you were to try that, you also would have no policy in place to deal with his potential refusal, so there you go again, back to square one. But, it's reasonable to proceed at minimum with counseling and restatement of expectations, perhaps even a suspension from work just as you might with other behavior or performance issues. Your underlying problem though seems to remain one of evidence and proof other than suspicion and that's the very purpose of sending someone for the reasonable suspicion alcohol screen, to either gain the proof you need or to dispense with the assumption of on-job use. Beyond counseling (by his supervisor with you in the room, or vice versa), admonition and restatement of expectations, I don't see that you have much more wiggle room in the absence of a policy.

Hatchetman

There is nothing I recall in the federal Drug Free Workplace Act that requires that an employee who is suspected of being under the influence of alcohol be actually tested for presence of alcohol BEFORE the emplyer can deem the employee under the influence of alcohol.

Talk to the employee. If someone smells of alcohol, acts strangely from how they normally act, shows signs of some of the symptoms normally associated with being under the influence or with symptoms that the employee exhibits when it was known that they are under the influence, such as staggered gait, slurred speech, reddened eyes, unkempt look, sleepiness, etc. then that is an indication of being under the influence. Generally, if some one knows what this person is like under the influence or has experienced people actually being under the influence, you should be able to deal with that as you would any other inappropriate behavior.

Talk to the employee and observe the employee. Get an explanation for what is occurring. If there is a legitimate explanation for everything, then of course you may need to follow up on the explanation, expecailly if it is medically based. Is he or she functioning differently? Is work being produced? That should all be documented. Then ake your call and take whatever action, if needed, consistent with policy or practice or any specific guidance issued previously to the employee.

If you want to test, you can do that. But it may not be necessary.

Don D

The 1988 Drug-Free Workplace Act (41 USC 701) applies to federal grantees and recipients of 25k+ federal contracts, which is a scant percentage of all employers nationwide. A majority of employers aren't governed by or affected by the Act, although many have adopted its regulations voluntarily or in response to State policies. I agree that most employers should have a written, comprehensive policy along those lines. Testing is prudent and an extra measure of 'protection' in defense of disciplinary action taken. But, as has been stated, testing is not essential - just wise.

phbair

Hatchetman is absolutely right when he advises you to look for "smells of alcohol, acts strangely from how they normally act, shows signs of some of the symptoms normally associated with being under the influence or with symptoms that the employee exhibits when it was known that they are under the influence, such as staggered gait, slurred speech, reddened eyes, unkempt look, sleepiness, etc. then that is an indication of being under the influence." I'd be very cautious about assuming someone has been drinking based solely on the "smell of alcohol," since there are reasons why someone's breath may smell of alcohol that have nothing to do with drinking.

MarieA

In the absence of a drug/alcohol policy, do you have a "professional conduct" policy? If you meet with the employee, be very careful not to accuse them of being under the influence. You can mention the slurred speach, staggering, smell of what seems to be alcohol, and ask for an explanation. They may be a diabetic and having a reaction. Good luck and get that reasonable suspicion policy in place. Remember, if you do want to use reasonable suspicion to refer someone for a test, be sure that you train your managers and HR staffers in the safest way to proceed.