Smoking on premises...

lnelson · January 2005

Here we go. Deep breath.
On lunch break yesterday we had a manager witness
5 ees smoking marijuana next door to our facility.
Immediately he notified supervisors. The supervisors spoke to the 5 ees and upon admittance were sent home to return the following day for disciplinary action.

My dilenma is 2 supervisors do not want to term the ees. They understand the severity of the situation but some of the ees are key people in the depts and hard to replace due to their knowledge.
I have no question this is a terming offense and that is my recommendation.
How would you handle this? Any other disciplinary possibilities?

szemcumo · January 2005

If you have a policy of termination for drug use you have no choice but to term these ees, key or not. First off if these are key ees this speaks sadly of your company on the whole. Second, if you don't term. then you will have to discontinue your policy or face possible lawsuits for the next non-key ee you term for drug use. It always amazes me when ers say but they are a key ee we can't lose them, they are no less a drug user than the hourly ee just getting by. Either you have a policy or you don't!

National Guard · January 2005

>It always amazes me when ers say but
>they are a key ee we can't lose them,

>they are
>no less a drug user than the hourly ee just
>getting by.

xclap O=* th-up

Whatever · January 2005

There are always other disciplinary possibilities.
Smoking marijuana during lunch is a fireable offense.
However, the real issue is one we have all faced. The ee should be fired but the manager says they are invaluable. In the vast majority of the cases, the ee has been disciplined several times and the manager did not have the intellect to train a replacement(s). Therefore, when the time comes to terminate, the manager wants to make an exception. In your case, you must treat all the ees the same. Either you suspend all of them or your terminate all of them. I would terminate (but I work for a manufacturing facility and coming to work high is a major safety issue).

HRinFL · January 2005

I agree that you need to follow your established procedures, if you have them. I do not know your situation, but we have a well defined policy. If an ee is within the probationary period and fails a random, they are discharged. After the probationary period, if they fail a random, they are given an opportunity for treatment through our EAP department. You get one chance to clean up. If you agree to the program, you are informed that another positive, at any time during your employment, you are termed. You also agree to random tests at our discretion. If you refuse treatment, you are termed. We also use this for ees that voluntarily admit to substance/alcohol abuse prior to testing.

We also differentiate between someone that is honest when confronted with a positive result and someone that is dishonest. The way I see it, the honest person has the ability to recognize the problem and would be more apt to benefit from the program. While we offer the program regardless, the ee that is honest may have the opportunity to return to work (for the first offense) once the program is completed successfully. The dishonest ee will not get that chance - but we view the dishonesty issue as a separate event and it is a violation of our code of conduct. Review not only your substance abuse policy, but also any policies addressing conduct and make your decision. It is an unfortunate situation either way.

HRinNH · January 2005

I go through this double standard stuff in my office too and it irks me to no end.

However, if a less valuable employee came to work high, you wouldn't hesitate to term. If you don't follow your policies on this one, they aren't worth the paper they're written on and you're setting youself up for future lawsuits.

Don D · January 2005

Knowing nothing of your policy and practice, I am amazed that they were not hauled down to the collection point for a urinalysis. Now where do you suppose you will find your proof if you need backup to support the termination? Our policy, and those of the last three employers I've had, is ironclad and leaves no wiggle room for a spineless supervisor or a toothless message.

In most environments safety is a primary concern and employers cannot afford (literally) to have employees on duty who are stoned. That's really the only basis for the policy to begin with. I don't give a hoot who smokes dope as long as he works somewhere else.

**When we do for others what they should do for themselves, we disempower them.**

jmcaa · January 2005

If you have an EAP, I would recommend them all to the program with specific goals that have to be reached, etc.

lnelson · January 2005

All ees have been termed but prior to terming they each gave a written statement acknowledging the event and some were distraught over the whole situation.

This was the first time 2 of the ees ever received disciplinary let alone termination. The other 3 ees felt the 2 didn't deserve termination because they were not smoking of course this comes after we have already spoken to the 2 ees and termed them.

It was viewed by a manager who witnessed the joint being smoked but did not specify if all participated. Disciplinary action would still have been done but would you term for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and not speaking up to a supervisor about what was going on.

We do have a drug policy but haven't had this type of situation before.

LindaE · January 2005

We have a last chance agreement that an employee will sign if he/she tests positive during a random or reasonable cause drug screen. The employee agrees to be seen by our EAP and signs a statement acknowledging that another positive drug screen will result in immediate termination. Our EAP does an evaluation and gives us recommendations as to the severity of the problem and the employee's willingness to stop using. I would've sent these folks to a clinic for a drug screen, too, to get the positive result on file. I'd be glad to send you a copy of our agreement if you'd like one.

TN HR · January 2005

This whole thing appears to me to be a WMD waiting to be released. My first thought is that given the scenario you described, the company is, at best, negligent for not testing. Now you have a supervisor who saw the joint but can't be certain that two of the ee's were smoking it. Coupled with testimony from two other ee's that they were the only ones smoking, you now have a debacle on your hands.

Pray to your higher power that those two go away quietly, otherwise be prepared to face the consequences of what appears to be a weak program in your organization.

Gene

Don D · January 2005

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-10-05 AT 09:45AM (CST)[/font][br][br]"Disciplinary action would still have been done but would you term for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and not speaking up to a supervisor about what was going on."

No. I know of no policy requiring that one employee tattle on another. I would not discipline someone for not reporting it unless that person had a management or supervisory role and an obligation to act.

Initially you said that a manager SAW five employees smoking marijuana and now that number seems to have dwindled by three and no testing was done. And initially you said the supervisor 'understands the severity'. That is not true. If he understood it, he would not be wiggling around trying to overlook it due to their value to the team.

It's not too late to send all of them for a reasonable suspicion test this morning. If they were smoking last week, they're testing positive today. I would round all five of them up and make it a condition of employment.

safety · January 2005

Why didn't the manager who saw this illegal activity call the police?

Don D · January 2005

What's the chance the cops in San Jose, California are gonna respond to a call about somebody smoking a joint?

Whatever · January 2005

Good Grief!!! Are you telling me there are still places in this country where cops will respond if someone is seen smoking pot?

TN HR · January 2005

Yeah, probably here in Nashville, TN. We have a new police chief trying to make a name for himself and appear tough on crime.

Given what we've experienced with him recently in the Music City, a call for someone smoking a joint would result in nothing less than the suspects getting Tazer'ed in the genitals, hog tied and taken to the Metro jail.

lnelson · January 2005

The cops would probably show but about 3 hours after the call.

All is now handled ees have been termed, supervisors have been spoken to about there judgemnet call on this issue. We have a company wide meeting schedule to address the issue along with other issues that have been brought to my attention.

New Handbook is done and being disbursed to all ees at this time along with acknowledgment of receipt.

Thanks for the responses.

HRCalico · January 2005

Day late and dollar short, and from my humble point of view -

What about personal responsibility? If they think it's OK to smoke pot on lunch, they're not the kind of employees I'd want. Further, guilty by association is enough for me on the allegedly innocents. I don't know that if I were Joe Schmoe, I'd turn in my buddies; at the very least, I'd find somewhere else to hang out on my lunch break.

I think you did the right thing.

Smoking on premises...

Comments