Drunk worker reinstated because of printer malfunction
Filed under: Document retention, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Security and law
Technical difficulties can cause all kinds of minor problems in the workplace. But here’s a case where a printer glitch actually interrupted an employer’s disciplinary process.
A hearing officer recently ruled a Denver city employee fired for drinking at work couldn’t be terminated. Why? Because the city failed to print out the results of his Breathalyzer test.
John Delgado work for the city as an equipment-operator specialist. In 2007, he failed a drug test required for all employees in safety-sensitive positions.
Rather than lose his job, he sought treatment and was required to abstain from drugs and alcohol for three years. He was fired after he failed an alcohol test last year.
The printer attached to the Breathalyzer machine malfunctioned and failed to print the results.
Even though Delgado didn’t dispute the positive results, the hearing officer decided he should keep his job because the city lacked hard proof. He was returned to his position and given back pay for the time he was out of work.
The city plans to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, the printer has been fixed and a backup system has been installed.
Comments
One Comment on Drunk worker reinstated because of printer malfunction
-
mike R on
Tue, 31st Mar 2009 5:08 pm
This is just crazy. There was no report written and signed by the person administering the alcohol test? (Proof) Did the hearing officer ask the employee if he was drinking? (Proof) (This isn’t a “criminal case” so self incrimination should not be an issue) Was there observed behavior that he was “under the influence?” (Proof)
Too many hearing officers have watched too many episodes of “Law and Order” and lose sight of their responsibility to get to the facts and come to a conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence.
When this individual goes on and causes a major accident while under the influence on the job resulting in the loss of life and limb and the city is held accountable, will this “hearing officer” be held accountable for negligence or even given a drug test?
