I've Got Someone Sacked .....
- Thread starter albert
- Start date
Soldato
How could it?
You simply take the guy home, go into work, go to your managers office...
"Alright Boss, I just went to pick Jim up, he was stinkin of booze and I think he had been drinkin this afternoon so I made it clear it was unacceptable and you will need to discipline him if you think necessary"
Then you go about your day knowing you didnt sit through his conversation/car journey without speaking, then dick him over when you get into work.
The actions are then the Managers.
Caporegime
The thing is you're about the only person suggesting this middle path of doing both. I think dmpoole is arguing with those saying he should only have sent him home sick, which could indeed come back to bite him.
He's not the only one.
Soldato
No. Do not feel bad about this. Hindsight is cruel and you can lie there thinking WHAT IFs till hell freezes over.
There should be zero tolerance for this sort of thing. No matter how good a worker he was - lives would be in danger if he was operating that heavy machine with people around him. Im sure MANY people have driven and operated heavy machines after downing beers etc. After a while you get that "It doesnt affect me...I got it under control"
And then one day something happens.
On the walk to work I see SO many idiots driving while yammering away on their cellphones. Unless the call was for an emergency these people should be imprisoned, and banned from driving. Also saw a near miss at a pedestrian crossing because a van driver was babbering away into his phone. If these sort of penalties existed this nonsense wouldnt go on.
I say you did what you thought was right and safeguarded your workmates - and yourself.
There should be zero tolerance for this sort of thing. No matter how good a worker he was - lives would be in danger if he was operating that heavy machine with people around him. Im sure MANY people have driven and operated heavy machines after downing beers etc. After a while you get that "It doesnt affect me...I got it under control"
And then one day something happens.
On the walk to work I see SO many idiots driving while yammering away on their cellphones. Unless the call was for an emergency these people should be imprisoned, and banned from driving. Also saw a near miss at a pedestrian crossing because a van driver was babbering away into his phone. If these sort of penalties existed this nonsense wouldnt go on.
I say you did what you thought was right and safeguarded your workmates - and yourself.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You are agreeing with me.
That is the only other way he could have done it without the chance of the lad saying something at a later date.
He couldn't afford not to mention it to the boss no matter what way it was done.
However, no tests have been done on the lad at the time so I'd go in with the Union or talk to a Solicitor.
Last edited:
Lulz.
Permabanned
you should have just sent him home and told him not to again and that if he did he would lose his job and left it as that. also technically he was sick so therefore technically not a lie. no would to know why as he could have said it very private therefore does not require disclosure. most doctors only charge £20 for a sick note. better to lose £20 than everything he his bound to lose now.....
Soldato
technically he wasnt sick duh
Sick means ill, sick doesnt mean a self inflicted injury/inability to do ones contractual obligations
Associate
Sick can also mean Nauseated and I think he would have been if told he could lose his job.
Actually sick in this context refers to being unfit for work. 'sick' simply refers to absenteeism in the workplace and it is up to the policies and management of the company to decide what is an acceptable level or reason for that absenteeism.
Any company is within their rights to dismiss or discipline any member of staff for absenteeism regardless of the reason, whether it is self inflicted or not, even something serious and out of the employees control like cancer can be subject to a companies Attendance at Work policies.
Different companies refer and categorise their policies differently, but the term Sick in this context simply implies an unfitness to work or carry out your contractual obligation, it doesn't mean you have a specific category of absence.
Soldato
Can someone please clarify how telling him to go home sick and then telling the manager is different from taking him to work and then telling the manager?
So many people seem to be hung up on this point and I don't understand it?
So many people seem to be hung up on this point and I don't understand it?
Caporegime
Castiel is obsessed with the notion that letting the drunk employee anywhere near the building could have brought about the downfall of capitalism. We still don't know if the drunkard starting working before he was sent home.
Soldato
Because I would have thought being onsite (possibly operating machinery) whilst under the influence would be treated completely different to someone unable to attend work due to being under the influence.
Soldato
It's not just Castiel.
What's the difference? You're still, as you put it, "dicking him over" except with your option he's not there to defend himself.
I would assume (although I may be wrong), that the OP, having had the sense to report him, would also be responsible enough to make sure he wasn't allowed anywhere near any machinery and was taken to the manager's office immediately.
The fact is, the employee intended to report to work while under the influence, and this is the problem.
Had it been that he'd had a heavy night before, and half way to work in the car gone "you know what mate, I think I overdid it last night, any chance you could drop me off home/at the bus stop" it would be completely different.
What's the difference? You're still, as you put it, "dicking him over" except with your option he's not there to defend himself.
I would assume (although I may be wrong), that the OP, having had the sense to report him, would also be responsible enough to make sure he wasn't allowed anywhere near any machinery and was taken to the manager's office immediately.
The fact is, the employee intended to report to work while under the influence, and this is the problem.
Had it been that he'd had a heavy night before, and half way to work in the car gone "you know what mate, I think I overdid it last night, any chance you could drop me off home/at the bus stop" it would be completely different.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I'm gobsmacked at some of the responses here.
I'm a manager of people that sit at a desk all day, if I knew they had been drinking in the morning before they were attending the office they'd be sent home and suspended with a view to dismissal.
Operating heavy machinery? No second chances.
I'm a manager of people that sit at a desk all day, if I knew they had been drinking in the morning before they were attending the office they'd be sent home and suspended with a view to dismissal.
Operating heavy machinery? No second chances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,059
castiel is a director of a bus operator group, and the legislation for drivers (and of course the operators/directors) falls under the duties under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 as well as the health and safety at work act. in summary this means that drivers of road vehicles must not be under the influence of alcohol while driving, attempting to drive or when they are in charge of a vehicle. this becomes an immediately prosecutable legal issue. although unlikely, this could mean jail time for castiel, more likely is the suspension of the operators licence for the bus company by the traffic commisioner which means no buses = big problem.
it is the 'attempting to drive' a vehicle part that is the problem here, and for a bus driver, coming into work drunk would be considered an attempt to drive the vehicle.
thus for the public transport sector, it is often more stringent when it comes to the consumption of alcohol or drugs. i imagine castiel’s company policy will not even allow employees on site who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol for the above reasons.
for most workplaces, it is the appliance of company policy that will to fulfil / discharge their duties of the health and safety at work act. this may simply state employees may not operate machines etc under the influence but not solely prohibit coming on site.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Well call me old fashioned, but I'd like to see what state the employee was actually in before deciding what action to take.
Man of Honour
But the guy hasn't operated any machinery.
People are debating over albert snitching and the difference between:
1) Reporting to the Manager while they have both just turned up for work
2) Dropping him off and telling him to have a floating holiday or sickie and still report it to the Manager
3) What a lot of people think he should have done:
Dropping him back home, telling him to have a holiday/sickie and not reporting it to the Manager.
Speaking from experience number 3) WILL come back and bite you one day.
The big thing for me is there is no proof he had been drinking except for what he had said and the Manager 'smelling' alcohol.
There isn't a case for his dismissal.
If this was a Police incident Von Smallhausen and Andy90 would be saying exactly the same thing - 'where's the proof?'.
Soldato
