I've Got Someone Sacked .....

cm1179 said:
risks are hypothetical, fill out a risk assessment form, it's hypothetical but the surrounding facts equate to how high the risk is.

man with alcohol in his sytem, operating heavy machinery = very high risk. not worth taking the risk.
Click to expand...

And contrary to any measure of reasonable liability that a company has toward the welfare of it's staff and public liability responsibilities.

The OP couldn't allow the employee to actually work, he had to report the incident, the only question is how he dealt with the situation and what alternatives, if any, he had in the way he applied his responsibility.
 
Malc said:
Talk about extremes. Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance? Looking purely at the OP's situation and no hypothetical drunken massacres, the OP wouldn't be held liable for anything. Hearing a passing comment wont get you charged for manslaughter:D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't class it as an extreme, and I didn't say the OP would be charged with manslaughter;

Accidents happen with heavy machinery, adding alcohol to the mix increases this risk dramatically.

Accidents involving heavy machinery are by their nature usually quite serious.

If there's a serious accident resulting in death/injury it will be investigated.

It's entirely likely that in an investigation, the OP's knowledge of the situation will be shown.

Most companies have a whistle-blowing policy in place, given the previous statements, by not saying anything the OP would be in contravention of this policy.

Given the previously implied seriousness of the situation, it is highly likely that the OP would be disciplined, if not fired for this.

No I don't tend to read newspapers, as the vast majority of it is irrelevant to me.
 
anticonscience said:
Every company I have worked for has stated that if you are under the influence of drugs/alcohol at work it is gross misconduct and could lead to instant dismissal.

I don't know why people are giving the OP such a hard time, yes he may have made the wrong decision, but no-one makes the right decision everytime.
Click to expand...

Not only this, but also in the plucked is that any worker can stop someone else, regardless of position and report it as per the policies.
 
Robbie G said:
No need to guess anymore:



But in any case you are wrong, because if it's company policy to adopt a zero tolerance approach to booze, then it doesn't matter if he fessed up or got on his knees or donated a million pounds to Cancer Research, jobsworth is nothing to do with it and the manager has little choice but to sack him.
Click to expand...

If he's just been suspended then that's fine, that's entirely appropriate.

To have sacked the bloke, especially given his honesty is the action of no less than a jobsworth, simple as that. "I don't have a choice, I have to do exactly what this piece of paper tells me" is pretty much the defining thought process of a jobsworth. Company policy is 'flexible' if you've enough authority to fire someone on the spot. (edit - I'd be surprised if many company policies state that you WILL be dismissed rather than COULD be dismissed though)

Zero tolerance to someone who is caught? Absolutely. Zero tolerance to someone who has admitted it before putting himself in a situation that will cause danger - that's deserving of some slack in my book.
 
Last edited:
Was there any reason why he was drinking?

Did he have a good record previous to this?

If he did, I would not want you as my team leader to be honest. EVERYONE makes mistakes, sometimes you have to pay for them, sometimes you do not.

To drive him all the way to work, then tell your superior just seems wrong. If it was dangerous for him to work while under the influence, you should have read him the riot act and kicked him out of the car.

Realistically, you knew what your manager was going to do to the guy, did you think he was going to tell him to lie down and sleep it off?

The guy made a stupid choice but dont we all at times?

If I was you, and the guy had a previous EXCELLENT record, I would be kicking and screaming for him to get his job back and redeem yourself.

How do you think others in the workplace are going to think of you now?
 
Last edited:
And what right does he have to instruct this guy to pull a sicky for turning upto work after 4 cans of lager?

Imagine the trouble he would be in with his superior if it came out he told him to go home and call in sick. The OP could well land in a disciplinary meeting for that.
 
Robbie G said:
My point is that the HR manager could have judged the situation far more accurately with the employee present, team leader or not. Therefore your off-the-wall point about letting the employee stay at home just in case the company's liability is increased for the two minutes he might have been operating machinery for (your assumption), is superseded by the need to get the employee's side of the story as soon as.
Click to expand...

No risk to the health or safety of anyone in the workplace is superseded by the need to have the employees testimony sooner rather than later.

We expect all our managers and supervisory staff to remove or restrict access from the workplace at the soonest opportunity (immediately) if they are a potential danger to themselves, others or the workplace itself. Investigation, clarification and disciplinary procedures do not take precedence over the safety of the workplace and it's staff.
 
Castiel said:
No risk to the health or safety of anyone in the workplace is superseded by the need to have the employees testimony sooner rather than later.

We expect all our managers and supervisory staff to remove or restrict access from the workplace at the soonest opportunity (immediately) if they are a potential danger to themselves, others or the workplace itself. Investigation, clarification and disciplinary procedures do not take precedence over the safety of the workplace and it's staff.
Click to expand...

Better not interview the guy in person then, just in case he's drunk when he comes in and drives his car through reception or something. In any case we still don't know that the OP increased the company's safety risk. He may have known the guy wasn't operating any machinery until 10am or something.
 
Wicksta said:
I just can't believe 'team leader' didn't say anything in the car after being told this and drove the worker (and presumably 'friend' if he divulged this information) on his merry old way to work before telling the boss to sack him. Honestly it beggars belief.

Obviously different people have different views on what 'leadership' is.
Click to expand...

If someone put me in that position I would have done the same. It's incredibly disrespectful at best.
 
I have summarised some of the legislation for you

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Section 2 General duties of employers to their employees..

(1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees..

(2)Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular—.
(a)the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health;.
(b)arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances;.
(c)the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;.
(d)so far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer’s control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;.
(e)the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work

Section 3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.

(1)It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(2)It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

(3)In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.



and re the employees actions and responsibilities



Section 7 General duties of employees at work

It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and

(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.



there are lots more elements to this including the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 but it gets boring.
 
Robbie G said:
Better not interview the guy in person then, just in case he's drunk when he comes in and drives his car through reception or something. In any case we still don't know that the OP increased the company's safety risk. He may have known the guy wasn't operating any machinery until 10am or something.
Click to expand...

Now you are being obtuse and silly.

I have already conceded much of what I said when it was pointed out that the OP doesn't have the experience that I do and that I should take that into account.

Even so, the better option would have been to warn the employee as to the consequences of his continuing to the workplace and escorted him to the HR/line manager on his arrival if necessary. He should not have allowed him to show up for duty when he had prior knowledge of his incapacity. You do not allow any risk that is reasonably avoidable, and by allowing the employee access to the workplace without restriction, even for a short time was an unnecessary risk as he could have avoided it with reasonable precautions.

Hopefully both with learn from the experience.
 
Last edited:
OP, you did the responsible thing and any adult with at least an ounce of common sense would have done the same thing.

Yes, in hindsight if it was a one-off you could have went down the "your an idiot, just pull a sickie, I'll pick you up tomorrow, bye" route, but still, it was HIS choice to drink a few hours before work and it is HIS fault that he is now jobless, not yours.

Some people in this thread who I won't name as I don't fancy a short holiday, have proved yet again that they're indeed complete morons and have quite honestly laughable principles and ideals.

Snitch? Grass? Telling? :confused: Are you people 12 years old?! Driving heavy machinery whilst tipsy or even **** faced (different alcohol tolerances) isn't really a good idea now is it?

Now where's my giantrolleyes.jpg when I need it?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom