I've Got Someone Sacked .....

Malc · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:28

Johnz0r said:
The OP shouldn't have been put in this position in the first place. End of.

That has no bearing on anything. He was put in the situation and he has to deal with it. I should be 6 foot 3 and better looking. I'm not and I've had to deal with it

Castiel · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:32

Robbie G said:
No it wouldn't, it would have allowed an equal consideration. They could have suspended him immediately pending investigation instead of summarily dismissing him. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the location of the employee at the time of mangement finding out, has such a large bearing on the ultimate disciplinary action taken. Whether he'd been at home or at work, his employers had an equal number of options available to them.

In any case he was already driving to work with this guy, they might have been two minutes away when he told him.

Because once the employee had entered the building (workplace) the employer becomes liable for that employees actions. The employee is a servant of the company the moment he enters his place of work, this means the consequences of the disciplinary action are greater as to the likelihood of the employee re-offending and the companies overall liability.

The company would be more inclined to dismiss due to that increased liability, whereas if the employee had taken advice from his immediate superior (if any had actually been offered) then the liability to the company is lessened in the consideration of a future incident (if there was any)

The employee was dismissed, ultimately it was his fault and his responsibility. However the OP is asking for advice on whether he had alternatives, which had he used better judgement as a friend and in his capacity as his Team-leader the management may well have seen this as a contrary of their attendance at work policy and the employees fitness for duty rather than a health and safety and legal liability issue.

aardvark · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:32

Robbie G said:
Really? Got any links supporting that?

its health and safety law - the employer must protect the safety of workers above all else. the potential of someone drunk in charge of machinery is taken VERY seriously, and failure to address the issue properly is jail time.

Scrutinize · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:34

Hedge said:
Just frustrating this could have been done far more reasonably.

if his job was office based and not operating machinery then i agree, but it isn't / wasn't

example; quite a few building contractors i used to work with (the big ones) have a zero tolerance alcohol policy for both employees and visitors. this is because of all the plant on site, and risk of something going wrong or a visitor doing something silly, and the implications of prosecution by the hse should the worse happen. this wasn't brought in because of a 'what if' but as a result of incidents occurring.

this meant if i went on site as a visitor, i couldn't have had any alcohol at all (our company policy was for a same day period so even at lunch if my visit was in the evening). if i did, i would have been disciplined by my company not the contractors for gross misconduct.

Malc said:
OP, you need to think how this entire situation makes you look in front of the people both above and below you at work.

i would hope it would reinforce a zero tolerance approach to alcohol in an environment where machinery is operated. the employee was the one at fault, some people won’t see it like that but the op has nothing to feel bad about.

Johnz0r · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:34

Of course it does. If the employee had been doing the job for the length of time the OP he stated then he would know the risks involved with going into work after having a few cans. He should have known better and has paid the price.

EdGey · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:37

Wouldn't consider doing what you did for a second.

You should have told him how you felt about it in the car.

Participant · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:39

Castiel said:
Because once the employee had entered the building (workplace) the employer becomes liable for that employees actions. The employee is a servant of the company the moment he enters his place of work, this means the consequences of the disciplinary action are greater as to the likelihood of the employee re-offending and the companies overall liability.

The company would be more inclined to dismiss due to that increased liability, whereas if the employee had taken advice from his immediate superior (if any had actually been offered) then the liability to the company is lessened in the consideration of a future incident (if there was any)

That's waffle, the company could have easily sent him home and a) fulfilled their obligations and covered their liability and b) given themselves a chance to investigate. They sacked him because they felt his actions were a sackable offence, not because the OP gave him a lift to work.

Glaucus · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:39

Geton with life. He knew what could happen. You knew what would happen. It's done and dusted. If you feel bad and he was a mate. Perhaps you should have had a go at him and taken him home.

Haggisman · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:40

Malc said:
OP, you need to think how this entire situation makes you look in front of the people both above and below you at work. Regardless of if what you did was technically correct or not, whether you should have been put in this situation etc etc, the fact is you were put in this situation and I personally think your actions make you look a bit untrustworthy and a bit of a grass. How will this effect your progression at work? How will the rest of the staff now treat you?

If you had have left him at home and told him to call in sick it would have given you more time to decide what the best action was.

In the future just think about yourself and how things impact on you and your progression (if that's what you're aiming for). In this case, being more considerate to a fellow member of staff would have helped him out and had zero bearing on you, whereas your actual action just disadvantaged you both.

So what you're saying is that the drunk employee's behaviour has the potential to cost the OP his job (if it really does have as much impact on the other employees as you are suggesting), and yet somehow it's still the OP's fault?

In actual fact, none of us can see the future, and while people may suggest "ideal" scenarios, the discussion in this thread just proves that there are flaws in all of them.

Don't say anything and ignore it - employee kills someone with machinery, OP gets found out in the investigation, and loses his job (plus potential legal action).
Tell him to pull a sickie and don't do it again - he does it again, kills someone, OP gets found out in the investigation, and loses his job (plus potential legal action)
Tell management - employee gets fired, everyone hates OP

Without the ability to see the future, the OP has no foolproof choice - he has made a judgement and has to live with the consequences (which shouldn't have been forced onto him), the only person in the wrong here is the employee who was drinking.

Personally I think the OP made the right choice - he protected his own interests, and ultimately that's what you need to do because no one else is going to, however he shouldn't have been put into that situation.

Anyway, do we actually know he's been sacked? Yes he was escorted from the premises, but it's possible he was just suspended for a week or whatever and told to sort his life out?

Nemeses · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:41

albert said:
...and i feel terrible about it. I hate playing good cop , bad cop

I'm a Team Leader at work and pick up a workmate on my way to work. On the way there he told me he'd had 4 cans of lager a couple of hours previous. As he drives machinery at work i told my supervisor what he'd said in the car. Subsequently the lad was taken to office and then walked off site. He had worked with me for a year and a half.

I know i did the right thing by telling my supervisor but i can't help thinking how i could have handled it differently so the lad would have kept his job. To make matters worse he was one of my best workers, knew every job and more and was always talking about trying for promotion. Also he's just bought a house and is paying for a holiday for early next year. This keeps going around and around in my head.

I'm not paid enough for this and my head is buzzing ......

Total coward, if I was your boss, you really not be a Happy bunny right now, and then you still brag about it no matter how your phrase your words.

I may now work for myself but for years I was a production/then operations manger and I have seen your type by the dozen.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:44

mrk1@1 said:
drinking to this extent before work demonstrates extremely poor judgement. It is perfectly reasonable to assume a trait of repeated behaviour. it wasn’t like a glass of wine at lunch, then work 2 hours later, this was a few cans before work, and the employee must realise the effect this much alcohol could have on his ability to safely operate machinery. my assumptions about anyone with that mentality seem perfectly reasonable.

if one of your drivers turned up over the limit and you found out about it you would be asking yourself how many times this happens, and I suspect and would hope they would be fired for gross misconduct.

more discretion could have been applied if his job was simply office based and at worst he may get a paper cut

We have a very defined procedure with dealing with substance abuse that is separate from the normal disciplinary procedures.

I would seriously question the judgement of any supervisor who knowing allowed a driver to report for duty while under the influence, which is effectively what the OP did. I would expect the employee to be told to remain at home or at least refrain from reporting for duty and then we would initiate an investigation and disciplinary procedure including consideration as to the health and mental state of the employee.

Only if the employee was outside of our predefined limits regarding alcohol once he reported for duty would we consider dismissal and then only after suspension, consideration and investigation, and if it was known that a superior knowingly allowed that employee to report for duty prior to reporting the incident then he/she would also be subject to the disciplinary procedure.

We would make no assumptions as to the behaviour of the employee without evidence as to that behaviour.

SteveOBHave · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:45

I'm sorry but I think the OP did right. The only one at fault here is the lad that made the choice to drink the beers and come into work. He chose to put the OP in a difficult place and ultimately risk his job. OP did nothing wrong.

Stop being uncharitable morons you lot.

FARGO · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:46

While it is true that you could have stopped the car and told him to get out and go home, I beleive it is also true that ultimately you did the right thing.

I don't beleive that you "trapped" him and drove him to work with the sole intention of getting him fired.

If he was that much of a good worker he wouldn't be drinking and shirking his responsibilites and potentially endangering himself and others.

To the people digging in to the OP saying how you have little respect for him etc, I'd have little respect for him if he didn't say anything.

FutileBreadMachine · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:48

If the guy thought it was OK for him to drink before operating machinery, he shouldn't be working there. Totally irresponsible. He should have taken a sick day if he had been drinking or not drunk at all preferably. Even taking a sick day for it is dodgy, he's a grown man, he should have the sense not to drink before work.

Castiel · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:48

Robbie G said:
That's waffle, the company could have easily sent him home and a) fulfilled their obligations and covered their liability and b) given themselves a chance to investigate. They sacked him because they felt his actions were a sackable offence, not because the OP gave him a lift to work.

I did not say anything to the contrary, I have already asked for clarification as to the dismissal. However I questioned the judgement of a Team-leader who knowing allowed the employee to enter the workplace unfit and report for duty prior to reporting the incident to his management, thus increasing the liability to the employer.

I have already stated that the employee is responsible for his actions and not the OP, however that doesn't address the judgement of the OP in the way he dealt with the situation.

pingwing · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:52

wab said:
Total coward, if I was your boss, you really not be a Happy bunny right now, and then you still brag about it no matter how your phrase your words.

I may now work for myself but for years I was a production/then operations manger and I have seen your type by the dozen.

Thats pretty much a personal attack and not a very called for one :mad:

A whole evening to sleep on this one and I stand by the OP doing the right thing. Chances are he hasn't been team leader very long and went to ask the boss what to do in this situation which lead to the sacking, not "grassing him up" deliberately which most people have suggested.

If his job say was a school bus driver and was doing the early morning school run the whole world would have been up in arms and jail would have been on the cards. If he'd been working in a play school, he would have been lynched for turning up drunk. So why does endangering other (mostly) guys lives in a site get a different reaction?!?!

He may have made a mistake by not just asking the guy in the car, but the guy in the car shouldn't have been stupid enough to tell the team leader about drinking or drink!

Especially as the assumption has been that the drinking was in the afternoon when the OP hasn't pointed out it could have been at 9am. If he was drinking for breakfast (and that being the reason for why he can't drive himself to work) the OP has made completely the right decision to get this irresponsible man out of the work place!

ivrytwr3 · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:53

Op has no stones - he didn't make any decision, he gave the decision to his boss to make.

And if i were that boss. i'd think the OP was a worm who was unable to deal with a tricky situation himself.

My actions would have been (and hindsight is a wonderful thing!), whilst in the car -

Me- "WTF are you doing drinking before coming to work and where in that brain of yours did you think it would be a good idea to tell me that?"

Him - "oh ****"

Me - "2 options - One, go home and i cover for you saying you're ill. Two, you come in to work, but knowing what i know, i will have to report that i am aware you have been drinking. What do you want to do?"

----------------

Even if you were put on the spot in the car - you could have still driven to work, took 5 - 10 mins to think things through and then made a decision.

Participant · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:54

Castiel said:
We have a very defined procedure with dealing with substance abuse that is separate from the normal disciplinary procedures.

I would seriously question the judgement of any supervisor who knowing allowed a driver to report for duty while under the influence, which is effectively what the OP did. I would expect the employee to be told to remain at home or at least refrain from reporting for duty and then we would initiate an investigation and disciplinary procedure including consideration as to the health and mental state of the employee.

Only if the employee was outside of our predefined limits regarding alcohol once he reported for duty would we consider dismissal and then only after suspension, consideration and investigation, and if it was known that a superior knowingly allowed that employee to report for duty prior to reporting the incident then he/she would also be subject to the disciplinary procedure.

We would make no assumptions as to the behaviour of the employee without evidence as to that behaviour.

Strange how you're suddenly scared of assumptions when you've made about a million in your persecution of the OP's behaviour. Another example is that you're assuming the OP let the guy clock on and start operating the machinery, whereas he may have gone straight up to the manager's office while the guy was still getting changed or something.

Also have you missed the part about summary dismissal for being under the influence being in their employment contract? He would have gotten sacked anyway if he was at home, work, or Timbuktu.

Castiel said:
I did not say anything to the contrary, I have already asked for clarification as to the dismissal. However I questioned the judgement of a Team-leader who knowing allowed the employee to enter the workplace unfit and report for duty prior to reporting the incident to his management, thus increasing the liability to the employer.

I have already stated that the employee is responsible for his actions and not the OP, however that doesn't address the judgement of the OP in the way he dealt with the situation.

He gave the guy a lift, during which he considered what actions he should take. We do not know the point in the journey at which OP was told, we do not know whether the OP allowed him to start operating the machinery before informing management. People do not always make perfect judgement calls in the spur of the moment (although I'm sure you do) and this should be allowed for also.

Robert · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:55

ghost101 said:
Wow, unless he operates a crane or something, I'd have given him a chance. Especially if I had no other reason to think this wasn't a one off.

But you didn't really do anything wrong I guess.

Wow I'm amazed. I didn't think I'd ever read anything as stupid as this.

You did the right thing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and yes it probably would've been better to send him home, but it could have been a very, very slippery slope.

What happens when he turns up tipsy and hurts someone? He could quite easily drop you in it by mentioning that you were aware of it.

SteveOBHave · 22 Sep 2011 at 10:55

Good god there are some extraordinarily naive and moronic people in this thread.