Employment Law Issues (9:V): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→d) Intoxication
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 569: | Line 569: | ||
Depending on the extent of intoxication and degree of prejudice to the employer, intoxication may be a cause for dismissal (''Armstrong v Tyndall Quarry Co'' (1910), l6 WLR 111 (Man KB)). But, intoxication in itself is not grounds for dismissal. The courts look at all relevant factors, particularly work record through previous years and whether the position is safety sensitive. Courts may be sympathetic to alcohol abusers especially if they are long-term employees (''Robinson v Canadian Acceptance Corp Ltd'' (l974), 47 DLR (3d) 417 (NSCA)). | Depending on the extent of intoxication and degree of prejudice to the employer, intoxication may be a cause for dismissal (''Armstrong v Tyndall Quarry Co'' (1910), l6 WLR 111 (Man KB)). But, intoxication in itself is not grounds for dismissal. The courts look at all relevant factors, particularly work record through previous years and whether the position is safety sensitive. Courts may be sympathetic to alcohol abusers especially if they are long-term employees (''Robinson v Canadian Acceptance Corp Ltd'' (l974), 47 DLR (3d) 417 (NSCA)). | ||
Consider whether the intoxication is part of a larger substance abuse issue. If so, the employee may have a Human Rights claim (see [[ | Consider whether the intoxication is part of a larger substance abuse issue. If so, the employee may have a Human Rights claim (see [[Introduction to Human Rights (6:I) | Chapter 6: Human Rights]] and the duty to accommodate). | ||
==== e) Absences and Lateness ==== | ==== e) Absences and Lateness ==== | ||