Peruvian court: Drunk on the job no reason for firing
January 16, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Dubious decisions, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, That's how they do it in ______
What does your company’s HR policy say about employees under the influence of alcohol on the job? Is it no tolerance, or does it depend on circumstances? Peru’s top court has ruled workers can’t be fired just because they’re drunk on the job.
The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that Pablo Cayo be given back his job as a janitor for the municipality of Chorrillos. He was fired for being drunk at work, according to wire service reports.
The justices ruled that the firing was excessive because Cayo didn’t offend or hurt anybody. The court also noted that it was just one incident, not a pattern of showing up intoxicated.
Peru’s Labor Minister criticized the ruling.
Celso Becerra, administrative chief of Chorrillos, also denounced the ruling. “We’ve fired four workers for showing up drunk, and two of them were drivers,” he said. “How can we allow a drunk to work who might run somebody over?”
Tags: drunk on the job, firing, no tolerance
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
First of all, I don’t care what they do in Peru. If one our employees is drunk on the job, they can be terminated on the spot. Regardless of their job duties, an impaired employee is a liability that cannot be tolerated. With the high rate of unemployment, anyone can be replaced.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Unfortunately, this does not only happen in foreign countries. I once worked for a forgeign company in the USA and I was forced to work with a functioning alcoholic for about 10 years. He used to use his corporate credit card to go to bars and buy drinks for himself in the middle of the work day, always reimbursing the company. Even though Management was aware of his “problem” he was never terminated. in fact, he left the company once and I breathed a sigh of relief and they hired him back! He used to tell his secretary that he was going to a different department on a different floor (usually my department) and when she called to find him, he had never been down to see us. And she would think that we were lying. He was eventually promoted to head of his department which does not say much about his staff if all management could find to run the department was someone in his cups daily. The company eventually closed their offices in the city and gave him a good recommendation so that he could get another job. They gave me a good recommendation as well but mine was deserved.