HAVING a quick drink at lunch if your company has a zero tolerance policy for being under the influence of alcohol, can have grave consequences, as two employees at a company discovered after they had a drink with their KFC chicken lunch.
If an employer imposes a zero tolerance policy for being under the influence, it includes your lunch break, although you are not paid for it and it is not considered as time at work.
This is according to Martlé Keyter, Chief Executive Officer of Misa, the Motor Industry Staff Association.
“Your lunch break is unpaid time and is the employee's own time – you can read a book or go shopping. But you are looking for trouble if you enjoy an alcoholic drink during your lunchtime in your uniform, knowing the employer has a zero tolerance policy in place,” Keyter warned.
Solani Manzini, one of Misa’s senior labour advisers in the legal department, had to defend two general workers, suspended after being caught on CCTV camera having a few sips of a Savannah Cider and a Mayfair Gin.
While on lunch, the two women bought the drinks at a Spar Tops before ordering KFC. They sat in the KFC outlet, sipping their drinks. A security guard saw them in their uniform and alerted their manager.
Back at work, they had to do a breathalyzer test but the results were negative. The employer permitted them to immediately resume their work. However, after obtaining the CCTV footage a few minutes later from the KFC, the employer decided to suspend them pending a disciplinary hearing.
According to Manzini, the implementation of the zero tolerance policy during working hours was of great contention in this case. The ladies were not drinking on duty.
Furthermore, the employer’s policy for being under the influence of alcohol was linked to testing positive during a breathalyser or blood test. This was not the case.
“The ladies were not intoxicated when they returned to work. They were honest in saying that they had a few sips to digest their food.”
Manzini added that Misa accepted that their actions - drinking alcohol in public while wearing their uniform - may be frowned upon. But, he said, as the non-drinking policy of the company read presently, the rules and policy of the employer were too vague.
The workers were subsequently found guilty during a disciplinary hearing and are awaiting the outcome of their sanction.
Even using cough syrup containing alcohol can sometimes get workers in hot water. Last year, a member of Misa was lucky to escape dismissal when he tested positive for alcohol after consuming cough syrup.
His blood alcohol level was 0.07 g of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, after taking a cough syrup that had no disclosure of its content.
According to Keyter, an employee could face dismissal if, based on the evidence provided, they were found guilty of being under the influence of alcohol, even after using a cough syrup.
“In this case the member was aware that the employer implemented a standard operating procedure (SOP) prohibiting employees from reporting for work after using certain cough syrups that contain 18% alcohol,” said Keyter.
According to the member, he had come down with a severe flu but did not have R400 to pay a doctor for a consultation in the village where he stayed.
While at home, he used the cough syrup containing alcohol, but stopped more than 24 hours prior to returning to work, but still tested positive.
The member ultimately received seven days’ suspension and a written warning.
Pretoria News