The Disability
Discrimination Act (DDA) excludes a number of medical conditions,
one of which is alcoholism. But experts have said that employers
still need to pay attention to the DDA when dealing with alcoholic
workers.
Ashley Graham, an employment law specialist with Pinsent Masons,
the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that conditions such as liver
disease or depression resulting from alcoholism could be
protected.
"The Act is intended to protect people suffering from
non-personally induced conditions whereas alcoholism is seen to be
on the border," she told technology law podcast OUT-LAW Radio. "If there are any associated
conditions, such as depression, that is covered under the DDA."
"The way it works is that you would have a recognised disability
and you would be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, and
that would mean that an employer would be prevented from treating
you any less favourably and subjecting you to a detriment on the
grounds of your disability," she said.
Ben Willmott has just completed a study for the Chartered
Institute of Personal Development on companies' treatment of
alcohol and drugs related issues. He agrees with Graham's view. "If
drinking results in a condition which is covered under the DDA then
you are covered under the DDA," he said.
A recent case underlined how careful employers need to be in
dealing with cases of drinking and drug use. In a case heard by an
employment tribunal, a Mr Sinclair claimed unfair dismissal by
Wandsworth Council. He had been dismissed after turning up drunk to
work twice.
The tribunal awarded Sinclair damages and reduced them to take
account of his culpability in turning up to work. That reduction
was only 25%, though, because he had not been given Wandsworth
Council's alcohol policy.
That was changed on appeal and the tribunal ordered to specify a
bigger reduction in Sinclair's payout, but the case highlights how
carefully companies have to treat alcoholism in the workplace.
Willmott said that the most important things for companies to do
were to create a specific policy and communicate it regularly and
clearly to workers.
But Graham said that in the aftermath of the Sinclair decision,
some organisations were better off not creating a policy in the
first place, if they could not guarantee its successful
communication and implementation.
"Realistically if the organisation isn't capable of actively
managing the policy, actively making sure that it is communicated
to all employees and it's kept up to date, then in some cases it
might be safer not to have the policy at all," she said.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
