In line with the corporate alcohol policy, my company is about to introduce random breathalyzer testing for employees. Most employees work in an engineering maintenance environment using tools and equipment such as lathes, pedestal drill, milling and grinding machines. Some of our work is carried out on site and involves working at height, using mewps and access platforms, the use of hand held power tools eg.angle grinders and the use of lifting equipment (overhead cranes). I wondered if anyone has any guidance on suggested breath alcohol level limits when using machinery (as opposed to drink/drive limits (the UKs drink drive limit being particularily high compared to most of Europe)? I don't want this to develop into a thread about the pros and cons of alcohol testing unless anyone has any particularly strong views, I really just need advice about sensible limits.

It's a flawed Policy if it doesn't stipulate that figure. Where I come from the TUs would have required that to be established before the policy was agreed. There's a great temptation to suggest zero of course, but the safer course might be to stick with the driving limit for now (0.08g per 100ml). I trust the Senior Management will be included in this random sample process. I'd be interested to know the manufacturer's warranted lower limit of accurate detectability for the machine you purchase, and my assumption is that you will be maintaining traceable calibration protocol. Further presumption is that if one of your employees fails (including the MD), and you know they drove to work, you'd call the Police. Again, the policy should make that very clear.

Introduced a policy few years back using the EU level .5 BAC as the first action level and UK .8 as the limit.

Crooky we set our limit at 13% this because The human body produces its own supply of alcohol naturally on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It’s called endogenous ethanol production. Therefore, we always have alcohol in our bodies so is you set your target at zero you will at somepoint have a member of your workforce who will fail. fail to plan then plane to fail is my motto Chris

Well spotted pikeman I was wondering how long it would take some one to come back ? the real Answer 13 micrograms/100ml of breath (29mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, 39mg/100ml urine,). chris

Most logical argument is to use the drink drive limit (also the same in the Railways and Transport Safety Act). If your risk assessment shows this is inappropriate so be it, but be prepared to justify a lower limit and factor in unfair dismissal costs into your budget!

I wouldn't go for zero limits as there are so many variables (as discussed). The drink drive limit sounds like a sensible benchmark to me. Like to see how easily it will be enforced in the senior managers though. I completely agree one rule for all but non-production workers, especially management, may have client lunches etc. This subject alone has raised fearsome debate on the forum before. What I think is greatly overlooked is the fact that they believe those under he influence of drugs (illegal and legal) are much more of problem in the workplace than alcohol. But that is definitely a can of worms that the Human Rights Act makes it difficult to tackle.

You can't force someone to have a blood test! The drink drive limit is based on a level that the majority of the population would be impaired. Its not the only level police operate at. They are likely to seek a prosecution for those classed as professional drivers (taxis, hgv, couriers) as lower levels than the current drink drive limit. In relation to drug driving draeger now do a home office approved drug screening kit. The levels are again set at those where the majority would be impaired- Whatever scheme you introduce it needs to be based on supporting the individual where possible.