You can’t get fired for an “above normal alcohol level”

Working under the influence of alcohol is obviously a serious offense that can lead to dismissal. This is what happened to a bricklayer employed by a construction company.

In July 2017, after falling from a ladder while climbing a wall on a construction site, the gendarmes who arrived at the scene performed a blood alcohol test on him that was positive.

The employee is then fired for gross misconduct a month later. The dismissal letter then specifies that the employee, in his workplace and while performing a task at height, worked with an alcohol level “above normal”.

This dismissal is considered unjustified by the employee who is taking the case to the labor court. His request was rejected at first instance and on appeal, but not by the Court of Cassation.

precise title

In a ruling made public on March 8, the Court validated the argument of the worker and his lawyer, arguing that the “dismissal letter that set the limits of the dispute did not accuse the worker of having worked in a drunken state.” but only for having an alcohol level above normal. The Court of Appeal violated the provisions of articles L. 1232-1 and L. 1232-6 and of the labor code”.

The written mention in the dismissal letter, namely that the level of alcohol “above normal” is not an admissible grievance confirms the cassation judgment.

“By resolving in this way, by estimating the grievance of carrying out work at height while intoxicated, a fact not contemplated in the dismissal letter and although said document only referred to acts of carrying out work at height with higher than normal blood alcohol levels, the Court of First Instance Appeal violated the aforementioned texts ”, we can read.

It was necessary to transcribe the “state of drunkenness” of the worker, which constitutes a serious offense in the sense of labor law.

Therefore, the decision of the court of appeal is annulled and the court of cassation “returns the case and the parties to the state in which they were before this judgment and returns them to the Court of Appeal in Paris.”