Hi NorthernGeezer
number of reasons really - use of alcohol or drugs in a workplace can cause work related problems, obviously, and it is in the interest of the employer to try and help with eg time off to see doctor or whoever, or to attend a course. The flip side is that you catch the person in possesstion/under the influence which may result in you suspending/sacking a potentially previously good member of staff(most HR policies state similar) who otherwise may have benefitted from your help. A car accident outside of work may have nothing to do with the work, but being drunk or stoned at work will lead to employer liability in the event of the worst scenario happening, without clear indications of a supportive realistic policy.

If someone comes to you voluntarily with such a problem two things happen: they are asking for help and it would be a bit cruel to not do so; they also potentially become patients, and it is also a bit harsh to not assist. If you give someone time off to have a minor/major op, surely the same should be given to someone with an alcohol addiction(in this context addiction could mean illness) if it is affecting their work? That is an extreme way of putting it, but you get what I mean.

There is also the legal side from the DDA. Despite section 3(1) of the Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 1996 specifically excluding alcoholism from the definition of disability under the DDA 1995, in Power v Panasonic UK Ltd the EAT held that an employee was disabled within the meaning of DDA where her depression was caused by alcoholism.

Others may be able to give more - maybe your own HR would be able to give their input?

Cheers

Martin

Unauthorised days off - it is the person's responsibility to get to work, fit, not smelling of alcohol or under the influence of drugs. Also not to be absent without authorisation. If either occur, normal disciplinary procedures apply with perhaps mitigation in mind if the person had previously disclosed an addiction or a problem of that nature. But they still have to do their job in a fit state with no danger to themself or to others. Previous threads have been about higher levels of safety applying eg in Rail, pilots etc, but I am not getting into the topic of mandatory testing again.....
But it costs a lot to recruit and train a member of staff. Better to help someone who will really appreciate that help if successful and will become your best, most loyal worker as a result?
Have a look at:

http://www.healthyworkma...ol/drug_employer.htm#top

which gives a number of perspectives. I work for a large organisation which has its own Occi Health dept so it is eminently do-able to assist in both financial and staffing terms. A SME may simply not have the financial ability to assist in the same way, but it would be in their interest to take some form of action to help, even if it is only finding out info, referring to a relevant assisting group etc, allowing a flexible approach where possible. Some people need to work to get through it, some people need time away. Individualise the approach if you can to the person?

I had an operation in October 2008. I had four weeks off recuperating. My relatively inexperienced manager covered herself by instructing me to go to a corporate GP for a seperate inspection to see if I was fit to resume work. My appointment with this guy occured 19 days after I had returned to work, but my manager at the time was rulebound and could not see the stupidity of it. I was passed fit, and the doctor said that it was the easiest fee he had ever made. That is what I mean about making it fit the person if you can, and their needs.

Probably has to be in proportion to what your organisation can afford. But still an employer should not do nothing, even though I am not aware of any legislation requiring employer assistance. It is simply in the employer's interest to help.