header-logo header-logo

06 December 2007 / Joanne Lunn
Issue: 7300 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Drink problem

Joanne Lunn examines the dangers arising from alcohol abuse in the workplace and the legal implications for businesses trying to tackle the problem

Recent research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development shows that although 40% of employers say alcohol misuse is a major cause of absenteeism and poor productivity in the workplace, few organisations have policies to deal with the problems.

Alcohol misuse among employees costs up to £6.4bn a year. An estimated 17 million working days are lost in the UK per year, amounting to 3%–5% of absences from work. It is also estimated that alcohol is a contributory factor in 20%–25% of workplace accidents.

Employers may face problems if employees consume alcohol during working hours, during breaks or before coming on shift. However, where employees regularly drink heavily or get drunk outside working hours this too may cause difficulties—not only of absenteeism or poor productivity but possible compromised health and safety when an employee has impaired concentration, judgment and co-ordination. Employees may injure themselves or endanger the public or colleagues. This

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll