What kind of problems does alcohol cause in the workplace ? What elements need to be present before it can be said that a worker “has a drinking problem?”

Generally, if a person’s drinking habits causes an adverse effect on his home life, his work life ( or both), then that person can be said to have a drinking problem.

We are more concerned with the problem affecting the workplace  – and if the employee’s output in terms of quantity or quality is affected, or his attendance record in terms of frequent absenteeism ( mostly without authority) deteriorates, or his use of sick leave (often one day at a time with no medical certificate produced) becomes more frequent, then be warned – there is a problem.

There has been some argument on whether the problem is classed as misconduct – the employee having broken a rule or standard of behaviour in the workplace – or whether it is classed as incapacity – the employee is rendered incapable of performing his duties due to the alcohol problem

This is arguable – in my view, it could be either. The fact is that what the employer is faced with is a non-performing employee who has a problem that is seriously impacting adversely on the employer’s business, and which is costing the employer money – all of which the employer is not responsible for.

Remember that the important thing here is not to diagnose whether the employee is an alcoholic or not – you only have to know that the employee’s drinking habits are impacting aversely on the workplace.

That knowledge is sufficient to justify the employer taking action.

The person with a drinking problem is an expert at hiding the problem. He will go out of his way to “act sober.”

He will be extremely co-operative, willing to undertake any task given to him, even if it is outside the general parameters of his job description. There will also be frequent absences from the work-station, with dozens of different excuses to justify this – weak bladder or bladder infection , upset stomach, bad headache, and so on.

These absences are of course “drink breaks.”

Very often the problem is compounded because the employee’s immediate supervisor, while suspecting that “something is going on”, very often ignores his suspicions, overlooks (condones?) the frequent absences from the workstation, or even ignores the increasing absences from the workplace for a day or even 2 days at a time.

He also ignores other warning signals – that the employee’s absence always occurs on a Monday, and that he is never available for Saturday overtime.

Another problem is that co-workers often will cover up for the errant employee – making excuses for him when his absence is questioned by the supervisor, and not realizing that by covering up they are in fact making his problem worse.

Whatever the case, the problem must not be overlooked. Further, it is one of those problems that cannot be treated gently – “I will have a chat with him” does not work. The problem is serious, and must be seriously addressed.

There are a number of options open to the employer on how to address the issue, some of which may be straight disciplinary action, a written (or even final written) warning, or the employer may choose to follow a procedure of counseling, offering assistance to the employee, and so on.

Another perplexing aspect is that the problem may be caused, not so much by the employees drinking on the job or intoxication at work, but rather by drinking and intoxication off premises and outside of working hours, with the employee being stone cold sober during working hours. More on that next week.

The South African Labour Guide is a private company and has no association with the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), you may find the CCMA on www.ccma.org.za