What would you do?

[Networkology]

Good evening guys and gals,

Just thought Id share a situation I was put into this morning and would like to know your thoughts on what you would have done?

In my normal job I work as a Night Duty Manager for a transport company. This morning I had a driver sent to me from an agency to do a days driving. Within 5 minutes of this driver arriving, I had received a complaint that a member of staff could smell alcohol on his breath. Naturally I challenged the driver regarding this, who told me he had chronic toothache and had dabbed some whisky on his tooth before leaving home. He insisted he had not had any alcohol of anykind whatsoever. I know the driver quite well, he has a clean license and he has always seemed genuine enough to me....

So what action would you take if any??

T

[ChipRivers]

Perhaps it would be worth having some of those do it your self breath tests that you see around at christmas time. It may be the drivers license that would be lost but it is your companies reputation!

[Rob Holmes]

For a regular driver (or one I'd want to keep) I would firstly take him off the road, secondly assess him that he isn't actually drunk. If he is make him catch a cab home (escort him to it) and then set him up for a written or verbal warning the next day he is due in. Then get your boss to verify what you did was ok.

If he wasn't still drunk then I'd keep him in the office doing paperwork all day.

That will a: cover your backside b: teach him a lesson as drivers hate doing paperwork ;)

For an agency guy - I'd just get him off site and request another from the agency pretty pronto.

Rob

[bwglaw]

The driver appears to be working for an agency. You can remove the driver from duty and report the incident to the agency and your Line Manager. If the driver does have chronic toothache and has to use whiskey to treat it then the driver should produce evidence of this by the way of a medical certificate.

The Agency and quite possibly the employing company will have a duty of care for the health and safety of others, including staff and other road users

[mumper]

I was a transport manager for about eight years and on the odd occasion I suspected a driver may have been over the limit from the night before, I took him off the road - no problem. I always chose caution over excuses.

[Networkology]

Some good answers

Whilst I wasnt 100% sure if he had had a drink or not, I couldnt take the risk, so I asked him to leave site.

I did feel a bit bad in case I was wrong, but at the end of the day Id rather do what I did 100 times and be wrong then let a drunk driver out just once in one of my lorries. I couldnt have it on my consience if he had an accident.

T

[bwglaw]

An employer can take appropriate action (i.e. suspension) merely on suspicion. An employer does not have to restrictly prove that he has or has not been drinking.

[Rob Holmes]

I couldnt have it on my consience if he had an accident.

It would have been more than on your conscience - If you were his line manager and you let him drive a company vehicle even though you suspected he'd been drinking you could have left yourself open to action being taken against you by your firm.

Rob

[Jayne]

Maybe now you sent him off site, he will find an emergency dentist. If he was telling the truth, I still would have sent him home, as toothache is just as distracting when driving and may have caused him to have an accident.

Jayne

[bwglaw]

It would have been more than on your conscience - If you were his line manager and you let him drive a company vehicle even though you suspected he'd been drinking you could have left yourself open to action being taken against you by your firm.

Rob

Rob makes a valid point. Does your firm have any policies and procedures in place for dealing with matters like this? It will at least, or should state whether you have authority to invoke the disciplinary procedure.

In our company only those with 'Directors' in their job title can invoke it as they are closest to me to ensure we comply with the law.

[Networkology]

Yes, I work nights and am the the most senior member of staff on the night operation, so I have full authority to invoke disciplinary action and had it been one of our own drivers this would have been the route Id have had to go down. However as he was an agency driver then he is not an employee and had been barred from working for us in the future and reported to the appropriate people.

Regarding Robs comments, yes Im aware of the implications of what could have happened, which is why I took the action I did, I guess I just found it difficult as I have known this guy for a long time (outside of work before I joined my current company) and in my heart of hearts Im convinced he would never drink and drive, but without being able to conclusively prove that he hadnt been drinking then I had no other choice that to ask him to leave despite personally thinking that he was telling the complete truth.

What bothers me is that man has now been tarnished as a drink driver in the eyes of some people (my employers, the agency, other drivers etc - I know its wrong but its human nature),when I dont believe he actually is.

T

[bwglaw]

However as he was an agency driver then he is not an employee and had been barred from working for us in the future and reported to the appropriate people.

Whether someone from an Agency is an employee is never black and white. He may well be a worker and your employer would still have a duty of care

What bothers me is that man has now been tarnished as a drink driver in the eyes of some people (my employers, the agency, other drivers etc - I know its wrong but its human nature),when I dont believe he actually is.


It happens. But if this driver genuinely does have the condition that may affect his driving (whether directly or indirectly) he should have made the Agency fully aware of this and if any agency staff have a condition then in some circumstances the employer should also be made aware.

[Networkology]

But if this driver genuinely does have the condition that may affect his driving (whether directly or indirectly) he should have made the Agency fully aware of this and if any agency staff have a condition then in some circumstances the employer should also be made aware.

I agree, but unfortunately its not that simple to get hold of the relevant people at 3am. What he should have done perhaps is told me as soon as he arrived onsite.

Obviously you will know the ins and outs of the legalities more than I ever will, however the question was more of a moral issue as I spent the majority of today feeling like a B*****d for ruining a decent regular number for a driver due to something of which he may be completely innocent. All in all it wasnt a nice position to be put in. I guess inncoent until proven guilty simply cant apply in all situations and thats just a way of life.

[JustOneUK]

Any driver that dabs whisky on toothache is an idiot, that's why they invented neurofen.

Alcohol and work are two things that should remain seperate, especially driving!
If he had mown down a pedestrian you would have had a guilty conscience for the rest of your life. Good decision to send him home. I would definately attach a verbal warning onto his next shift. Period.

James.

[Pebble Communications]

Funnily enough this is a question that cropped up during my management course a few weeks ago.
We concluded that unless there was a clause in their employment contract stating that no alchohol was permitted for 'X' many hours before a shift, you couldn't do anything unless you genuinely had good reason to suspect they are over the legal drink driving limit. You are not allowed to control an employee's behaviour outside of work hours unless you specifically contract to it.

[Rob Holmes]

We concluded that unless there was a clause in their employment contract stating that no alchohol was permitted for 'X' many hours before a shift, you couldn't do anything unless you genuinely had good reason to suspect they are over the legal drink driving limit. You are not allowed to control an employee's behaviour outside of work hours unless you specifically contract to it.
The contract is with the agency and the scenario described could probably be fitted into a 'general' clause. I don't think the law would side with the agency driver just because there wasn't a specific clause in the contract to say the agency must not supply drunk drivers. Would probably be just 'assumed' that any staff supplied would be fit for the job - I'm sure theres some sort of legal terminology for it.

Any professional driver has a responsibility to be sober when performing his/her driving job, any actions they do that lead others to believe otherwise could jeapardise their livelyhood.

The line manager also has a contract which affects the outcome of this as well, the warehouse would also be subject to standard health and safety laws and then probably have some more of their own as well. The Manager and agency driver are both obliged to work within those health and safety regulations and these would permit the manager to do what he did.

Rob

[Donnash]

I've had a similar situation, he wasn't a driver though. All I did was take him to the nearest polise station for a blood alcohol test and gave him the rest of the day off. Turned out the hadn't been drinking. Good thing is he got a paid days leave and undeniable proof that he wasn't drinking.

[bwglaw]

Funnily enough this is a question that cropped up during my management course a few weeks ago.
We concluded that unless there was a clause in their employment contract stating that no alchohol was permitted for 'X' many hours before a shift, you couldn't do anything unless you genuinely had good reason to suspect they are over the legal drink driving limit. You are not allowed to control an employee's behaviour outside of work hours unless you specifically contract to it.

I disagree entirely.

Whilst the employer may not have full control of an employee out of work the employer has control of the employee immediately on the start of his duties. No clause in the contract needs to be inserted. It is an implied duty that the employer and employee will protect their own health and safety and those of others.

Bear in mind that everyone's bloodstream reacts differently when under the influence. You could get two different people having 5 pints of lager 5 hours ago and one is fine and the other is still out of it.

How does the clause then guide the employer?

The employee turns up still intoxicated and insists on doing his shift because the contract says he can provided he did not drink X amount of hours ago. How do you prove that the employee did drink X amount of hours ago?

The best course of action would be for the employer to use his judgment on the day and suspend the driver pending investigation.