Working under the influence of alcohol presents immediate health and safety concerns, reputational exposure and significant employment law risk. While being drunk at work is not automatically a criminal offence in most UK workplaces, it can amount to serious misconduct and in some circumstances gross misconduct. Employers who respond incorrectly risk unfair dismissal claims, discrimination claims, regulatory enforcement and reputational damage.
Alcohol-related cases rarely fail because dismissal was impossible. They fail because the employer mishandled the process, failed to assess proportionality or overlooked Equality Act risk.
This guide sets out a compliance-first framework for employers dealing with drinking at work issues, including whether you can dismiss an employee for being drunk at work, how to manage disciplinary action lawfully and how to handle cases involving alcohol dependency.
What this article is about
This article explains the legal framework governing alcohol at work disciplinary action in the UK. It covers health and safety duties, unfair dismissal principles, ACAS Code compliance, alcohol testing, Equality Act considerations, dependency risk, company events and best practice policy design. It is written for employers, HR professionals and senior managers who need to manage risk while acting fairly and proportionately.
Section A: Drinking at Work – The Legal Framework in the UK
Alcohol at work is not regulated by a single statute. Instead, it engages overlapping areas of employment, health and safety, discrimination and data protection law. Employers must understand how these regimes interact before deciding whether dismissal is justified.
A compliant response requires more than reacting to misconduct. It requires understanding what the law actually expects.
1. Health and safety duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Employers owe a statutory duty under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of employees. Under section 3, they must also protect non-employees affected by their undertaking.
If an employer knowingly allows an intoxicated employee to continue working in circumstances where there is a foreseeable risk of harm, enforcement action may follow. The Health and Safety Executive can investigate where alcohol impairment contributes to workplace accidents or near misses.
The legal question is not whether alcohol was consumed. It is whether the employer took reasonably practicable steps to manage a foreseeable safety risk.
In safety-critical sectors, the threshold for intervention is lower. Roles involving driving, operating machinery, construction activities, healthcare delivery, public transport, aviation or maritime operations create elevated regulatory exposure.
In some sectors, working under the influence is a criminal offence. For example, the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 creates offences for certain transport workers who are unfit through drink. In these environments, the employer’s duty to act is not discretionary. Failure to intervene may itself be unlawful.
Employees also owe duties under section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to take reasonable care of themselves and others and to cooperate with employer safety measures. That duty is often relevant where alcohol use creates risk in the workplace.
Section A – Part 1 Summary
Employers have a positive statutory duty to manage alcohol-related risk. If intoxication creates foreseeable danger and the employer fails to act, enforcement action may follow. In safety-sensitive roles, regulatory exposure increases significantly and the employer is expected to intervene promptly and proportionately.
2. Employment Rights Act 1996 – conduct dismissal principles
Alcohol-related misconduct usually falls under section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as a conduct dismissal.
For dismissal to be fair, the employer must show a genuine belief in the employee’s misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief and a reasonable investigation before forming that belief. This reflects the well-established principles in British Home Stores v Burchell.
Even where misconduct is proven, a tribunal will ask whether dismissal fell within the “range of reasonable responses” open to a reasonable employer. Under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal assesses whether the employer acted reasonably in treating misconduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal in all the circumstances.
Key factors include the seriousness of the intoxication, the employee’s role and level of responsibility, the safety implications, the employee’s disciplinary record, consistency of treatment and whether dismissal was proportionate.
Employees with two years’ continuous service have protection against ordinary unfair dismissal. In some cases, shorter service employees may still bring claims if the dismissal relates to discrimination, whistleblowing, health and safety activities, trade union activity or asserting statutory rights.
Section A – Part 2 Summary
Alcohol-related dismissal is assessed under conduct principles in the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employer must demonstrate reasonable investigation, reasonable belief and proportionality. The decision must fall within the range of reasonable responses and satisfy the statutory reasonableness test under section 98(4).
3. The ACAS Code of Practice – procedural compliance
The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures applies to alcohol-related misconduct cases.
Failure to follow the Code does not automatically make dismissal unfair. However, an employment tribunal may increase or decrease compensation by up to 25 percent where there is an unreasonable failure to comply with the Code.
The Code requires employers to establish the facts of the case, inform the employee of the allegations in writing, invite the employee to a disciplinary hearing, allow the employee to be accompanied, provide an opportunity to respond, offer a right of appeal and apply the process consistently.
Many employers lose defensible cases because they skip steps, rush decisions or dismiss “on the spot” without process.
Summary dismissal is lawful where gross misconduct is established and procedure is followed. It becomes unlawful where process is ignored.
Section A – Part 3 Summary
Procedural fairness is central to alcohol at work disciplinary UK cases. The ACAS Code should be treated as the minimum benchmark. Failure to comply can materially increase tribunal exposure even where misconduct occurred.
Section B: Can You Dismiss an Employee for Being Drunk at Work?
Yes, dismissal may be lawful. However, whether it is fair will depend on the circumstances, the employee’s role, the employer’s policies and the procedure followed.
Tribunals do not apply a blanket rule that being drunk at work automatically amounts to gross misconduct. They examine proportionality, consistency and procedural compliance.
The legal risk for employers is not usually the decision to discipline. It is dismissing too quickly, too harshly or without proper investigation.
1. When does being drunk at work amount to gross misconduct?
Being drunk at work may amount to gross misconduct where the conduct is sufficiently serious to destroy trust and confidence.
Common examples include intoxication in a safety-critical role, endangering colleagues, clients or service users, causing an accident or near miss, reputational damage to the organisation, aggressive or inappropriate behaviour linked to alcohol, or breach of a clear zero-tolerance alcohol policy.
In regulated sectors such as transport, healthcare, construction and financial services, the threshold for gross misconduct may be lower due to heightened safety or compliance obligations.
However, intoxication is not automatically gross misconduct in every context. Tribunals will examine the actual impact of the behaviour, the employee’s seniority, whether the employer has consistently treated similar cases as gross misconduct and whether the policy clearly categorises intoxication as gross misconduct.
An employer cannot retrospectively elevate conduct to gross misconduct if its policy does not support that position.
Section B – Part 1 Summary
Being drunk at work can amount to gross misconduct, particularly in safety-sensitive or regulated roles. However, classification depends on seriousness, policy clarity and consistency of treatment.
2. Can you dismiss without notice?
Summary dismissal, meaning dismissal without notice or notice pay, is lawful where gross misconduct is established and a fair procedure has been followed.
The legal risk arises when employers dismiss immediately without investigation, fail to invite the employee to a disciplinary hearing, deny the right to representation or fail to consider mitigation.
Even in clear cases of intoxication, employers must still investigate the allegation, gather evidence, invite the employee to a formal hearing, allow them to respond, consider alternatives to dismissal and provide a right of appeal.
A dismissal that is substantively justified can still be procedurally unfair if these steps are skipped.
Where the conduct is less serious or a first offence, dismissal without notice is unlikely to be reasonable.
Section B – Part 2 Summary
Summary dismissal is lawful only if gross misconduct is proven and procedure is followed. The legality turns on process as much as substance.
3. What if it was a one-off incident?
A one-off incident does not automatically prevent dismissal. However, it does increase the scrutiny applied by a tribunal.
Factors likely to weigh in favour of the employee include long service with a clean disciplinary record, no safety consequences, clear remorse, evidence of personal difficulty or stress and lack of clear policy guidance.
In contrast, a single incident may still justify dismissal where the employee was performing safety-critical duties, there was serious reputational harm, clients or vulnerable individuals were affected or the employee held a senior leadership position.
Tribunals assess whether dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, not whether they would have dismissed themselves.
Consistency is crucial. If previous similar incidents resulted in warnings rather than dismissal, deviation must be justified.
Section B – Part 3 Summary
A one-off case of drinking at work may or may not justify dismissal. The deciding factor is proportionality, risk exposure and consistency with prior treatment.
4. What about employees with less than two years’ service?
Employees with less than two years’ service cannot ordinarily claim unfair dismissal. However, employers should not assume dismissal is risk-free.
Claims may still arise if the dismissal relates to disability discrimination, whistleblowing, health and safety activities, trade union activity or asserting statutory rights. Employers should therefore follow fair process even for short-service employees, particularly where there are indicators of potential Equality Act risk.
Section B – Part 4 Summary
Short service reduces ordinary unfair dismissal risk but does not eliminate legal exposure. Discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal claims remain possible and should be considered before dismissal decisions are finalised.
Section C: Accused of Drinking Alcohol at Work – Investigation, Evidence and Alcohol Testing
When an employee is accused of drinking alcohol at work, the employer’s first obligation is to manage risk. The second is to ensure procedural fairness.
Many unfair dismissal findings arise not because intoxication did not occur, but because the investigation was rushed, poorly documented or handled inconsistently.
A structured and proportionate response is essential.
1. Immediate risk management
If an employee appears intoxicated during working hours, especially in a safety-sensitive role, the employer should act promptly.
Appropriate immediate steps may include removing the employee from safety-critical duties, escorting them discreetly away from the workplace, preventing them from driving if there is risk and arranging safe transport home where necessary.
Public confrontation or humiliation may create separate legal risk, including potential constructive dismissal arguments.
Where necessary, suspension pending investigation may be appropriate. However, suspension must be a neutral act, justified by risk or integrity of the investigation, kept under review and confirmed in writing. Automatic suspension without consideration of alternatives may breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, as confirmed in Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth.
Section C – Part 1 Summary
If an employee is suspected of being drunk at work, manage safety first and act proportionately. Suspension should not be automatic and must be justified and regularly reviewed.
2. Conducting a fair investigation
The legal test for misconduct dismissal requires a reasonable investigation before forming a genuine belief.
In alcohol-related cases, employers should record observations objectively, identify witnesses promptly, take written statements, preserve relevant CCTV or access records and invite the employee to provide their explanation.
Investigations should focus on facts, not assumptions. Slurred speech, smell of alcohol, erratic behaviour and unsteadiness may be relevant, but conclusions should not be pre-determined.
The employee must be given an opportunity to respond before any disciplinary decision is made in accordance with the disciplinary procedure and the ACAS Code.
Failure to investigate thoroughly is one of the most common reasons tribunals find dismissals unfair.
Section C – Part 2 Summary
A fair investigation is essential. Employers must establish facts objectively and give the employee an opportunity to respond before proceeding to disciplinary action.
3. Alcohol testing in the workplace – legal considerations
Alcohol testing is not automatically lawful simply because misconduct is suspected.
Testing will generally only be justified where the employment contract permits it or a clearly communicated policy allows it, and where the testing is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the risk being addressed.
Testing is more easily justified in safety-critical sectors. In office-based roles, routine testing is harder to defend.
Alcohol test results constitute special category data under UK GDPR because they relate to health information. Employers must therefore identify a lawful basis under Article 6, typically legitimate interests or legal obligation in safety contexts, and satisfy an Article 9 condition, commonly employment law obligations or occupational health purposes where applicable.
Employers must ensure proportionality, limit access to results, store data securely and retain data only as long as necessary. In many cases, a Data Protection Impact Assessment will be advisable before implementing a testing regime.
If an employee refuses to take a test, the refusal may form part of disciplinary proceedings. However, refusal is not automatically gross misconduct. The tribunal will assess whether the request itself was reasonable and contractually authorised.
Section C – Part 3 Summary
Alcohol testing must be contractually authorised, necessary and proportionate, and compliant with UK GDPR. Refusal may justify disciplinary action, but only where the request was reasonable.
4. Evidence without testing
An employer does not need a positive alcohol test to discipline an employee.
A dismissal can be fair if based on credible witness accounts, contemporaneous written observations, CCTV footage, admissions by the employee or behavioural evidence consistent with intoxication.
The legal standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is whether the employer had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds following reasonable investigation.
However, the weaker the evidence, the greater the procedural care required.
Section C – Part 4 Summary
Testing is not essential for disciplinary action. What matters is whether the employer formed a reasonable belief based on a fair and thorough investigation.
Section D: Can You Fire Someone for Being an Alcoholic in the UK?
Alcohol dependency cases require greater legal care than isolated misconduct cases. Employers must distinguish between misconduct and potential disability risk under the Equality Act 2010.
You cannot automatically dismiss someone simply because they are an alcoholic. The legal analysis is more nuanced.
1. Alcohol dependency and the Equality Act 2010
Under Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010, addiction to alcohol is expressly excluded from the definition of disability. The statutory exclusion does not apply to addiction arising from medically prescribed drugs.
This means alcohol dependency itself is not automatically a protected disability.
However, the exclusion does not end the analysis.
An employee may still qualify as disabled where they suffer from a physical condition linked to alcohol misuse, such as liver disease, or have a mental health condition, such as depression or anxiety, which meets the statutory definition of disability. Alcohol misuse may also be a symptom or consequence of an underlying impairment.
A disability under the Act is defined as a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. “Long-term” means lasting or likely to last at least 12 months.
If these criteria are met, the employer’s legal duties change significantly and failure to address them may expose the organisation to disability discrimination claims.
Section D – Part 1 Summary
Alcohol addiction alone is not a disability under UK law, except where linked to prescribed drugs. However, related physical or mental conditions may qualify. Employers must assess the full medical context before proceeding to dismissal.
2. Knowledge and the duty to make reasonable adjustments
The duty to make reasonable adjustments arises only if the employee has a qualifying disability and the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known of that disability.
Employers are not expected to diagnose medical conditions. However, where warning signs exist, ignoring them may create constructive knowledge.
Warning indicators may include repeated sickness absence, disclosure of dependency, medical certificates referencing mental health conditions or behaviour suggesting underlying impairment.
Where disability is reasonably suspected, best practice includes an occupational health referral, medical evidence review and discussion with the employee about support needs.
Reasonable adjustments in alcohol-related cases might include temporary adjustment of duties, flexible scheduling for treatment, phased return arrangements or support through an Employee Assistance Programme.
Failure to consider adjustments where disability exists can result in discrimination claims.
Section D – Part 2 Summary
The duty to make reasonable adjustments arises where disability is present and known. Employers must not ignore potential medical evidence before disciplining.
3. Misconduct versus capability
Employers must carefully categorise the issue.
Turning up drunk at work is misconduct. Inability to perform duties due to long-term health condition may fall under a capability dismissal process.
In capability cases, employers are generally expected to obtain medical evidence and consult with the employee before dismissal.
Where alcohol dependency contributes to repeated misconduct, tribunals expect employers to demonstrate that they considered medical evidence, explored support options, assessed proportionality and distinguished between blameworthy conduct and ill-health impact.
That does not mean dismissal becomes impossible. Persistent misconduct, even where linked to dependency, may justify dismissal if support has been offered, adjustments have been considered, warnings have been issued and behaviour continues.
Section D – Part 3 Summary
Alcohol-related cases may straddle misconduct and capability. Employers must distinguish between wilful behaviour and health-related incapacity before deciding on dismissal.
4. Can you dismiss for alcohol dependency?
Yes, potentially. But only after proper assessment.
Dismissal may be fair where the employee repeatedly attends work intoxicated, safety risk persists, adjustments have been considered, treatment has been refused or failed and trust and confidence has broken down.
However, dismissal may be unfair or discriminatory where no medical assessment was undertaken despite warning signs, adjustments were not considered or the employer treated dependency as purely misconduct without exploring underlying causes.
The key legal question is whether dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances and compliant with both unfair dismissal principles and discrimination law.
Section D – Part 4 Summary
An employer can dismiss an employee with alcohol dependency, but only after assessing Equality Act risk and considering reasonable adjustments. Failure to do so may result in discrimination claims.
Section E: Alcohol at Work Policy – Designing a Defensible Disciplinary Framework
An alcohol at work disciplinary UK case is significantly easier to defend where the employer has a clear, consistently applied workplace policy.
Without a policy, tribunals are more likely to question whether dismissal was foreseeable, proportionate and consistent. A well-drafted alcohol policy does not guarantee fairness, but it materially strengthens the employer’s position.
A policy also reduces managerial inconsistency, which is one of the most common weaknesses exposed in tribunal proceedings.
1. What should an alcohol at work policy cover?
A compliant alcohol policy should clearly set out whether alcohol consumption is prohibited during working hours, whether moderate drinking is permitted in limited circumstances, expectations regarding reporting for work under the influence, rules for safety-critical roles, the organisation’s approach to alcohol testing, the disciplinary consequences of breach, the availability of support for dependency and confidentiality expectations.
The policy should state clearly whether being drunk at work may amount to gross misconduct.
Ambiguity weakens the employer’s ability to rely on gross misconduct classification.
Section E – Part 1 Summary
A clear and precise alcohol policy strengthens disciplinary defensibility. Ambiguity undermines gross misconduct arguments.
2. Zero-tolerance versus managed approach
Some employers adopt a zero-tolerance policy, particularly in safety-sensitive industries. Others allow moderate consumption at client events or celebrations.
Either approach is lawful, but inconsistency is not.
If moderate drinking is sometimes permitted, the policy must define what “moderate” means, which roles are excluded, whether prior approval is required and whether consumption before driving is strictly prohibited.
An employer who routinely encourages drinking at work events may struggle to justify dismissal for lesser consumption unless clear boundaries were communicated.
Tribunals assess not only written policy, but workplace culture.
Section E – Part 2 Summary
The chosen approach to alcohol must be consistent with workplace culture and clearly communicated. Informal tolerance can weaken disciplinary justification.
3. Introducing or updating a policy
While a standalone alcohol policy is not legally mandatory, it is strongly advisable.
When introducing or updating a policy, employers should consult employees and consult recognised trade union safety representatives where applicable. They should ensure contractual documentation reflects testing provisions where relevant, provide training to managers on application and communicate expectations clearly to staff.
In safety-critical sectors, alcohol policies may form part of wider health and safety management systems.
Failure to consult where appropriate may not automatically invalidate a policy, but it may undermine employee relations and procedural fairness arguments.
Section E – Part 3 Summary
Consultation and communication are key to embedding an enforceable alcohol at work policy. Policies that exist only on paper are harder to rely upon.
4. Suspension, investigation and support provisions
A robust policy should clarify that suspension may occur pending investigation, that suspension is a neutral act, that investigations will follow the ACAS Code, that the employee has the right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings and that appeals are available.
Clarity on process reduces claims that the employer acted arbitrarily.
Where alcohol testing is included, the policy must also address when testing may occur, the type of testing used, consequences of refusal and data protection handling.
The policy should also encourage voluntary disclosure of dependency issues and signpost support mechanisms such as an Employee Assistance Programme. Distinguishing between voluntary disclosure before misconduct and being discovered intoxicated at work may demonstrate proportionality.
Section E – Part 4 Summary
A defensible alcohol at work disciplinary UK framework must clearly outline investigation, suspension, testing and support procedures. Transparency and consistency strengthen legal compliance.
Section F: Drinking at Work Law UK – Company Events and Vicarious Liability
Alcohol-related risk does not end when employees leave the office. Work-related social events are often treated in law as extensions of the workplace.
Employers may face liability for misconduct occurring at Christmas parties, team celebrations and client entertainment events. Managing these risks is part of responsible compliance.
1. Employer liability at work-related social events
Employers may be held liable under principles of vicarious liability for acts committed in the course of employment.
The courts assess whether there is a sufficient connection between the employment and the misconduct. Work-organised events, even if held off-site or outside normal hours, may fall within scope where attendance is expected or strongly encouraged, the event is funded or organised by the employer or managers are present in a professional capacity.
Misconduct arising from excessive drinking may lead to claims such as harassment claims, assault, discrimination or constructive dismissal.
Where alcohol contributes to inappropriate behaviour, the employer’s preventative measures will be scrutinised carefully.
Section F – Part 1 Summary
Work-related social events can create employer liability. Alcohol consumption does not remove responsibility where there is a sufficient connection between the employment and the misconduct.
2. Managing risk at company events
To reduce exposure, employers should take proportionate preventative steps.
These may include issuing pre-event reminders about conduct expectations, reinforcing that workplace policies apply at social events, making clear that disciplinary action may follow misconduct, limiting free alcohol availability, providing non-alcoholic alternatives and ensuring under-18 employees are not served alcohol in compliance with the Licensing Act 2003.
If an employer appears to encourage excessive drinking, it may weaken their position in subsequent disciplinary action.
Consistency is important. An employer who promotes heavy drinking culture cannot easily rely on strict zero-tolerance arguments later.
Section F – Part 2 Summary
Preventative communication and proportionate alcohol management reduce liability risk at work-related events. Workplace culture will be examined alongside written policy.
3. Post-event absence and hangover issues
Employers often face situations where employees fail to attend work following a company event due to excessive drinking.
Whether disciplinary action is appropriate depends on whether attendance expectations were clearly communicated, the employee’s role and responsibilities, the history of similar conduct and the employer’s prior tolerance.
A hangover is not generally a protected health condition under the Equality Act. However, repeated absence may raise misconduct or capability concerns depending on the underlying cause.
Clear pre-event communication that attendance the following day is expected reduces ambiguity and strengthens enforcement.
Section F – Part 3 Summary
Post-event absence can justify disciplinary action where expectations were clearly communicated. Advance clarity strengthens legal defensibility.
4. Safe transport and duty of care
Employers should consider how employees will travel home after alcohol-focused events.
While there is no general legal duty to provide transport, practical measures such as providing a coach, sharing taxi details or reminding staff not to drink and drive can reduce safety risk and reputational exposure.
Encouraging responsible behaviour aligns with broader health and safety obligations and demonstrates proportionate risk management.
Section F – Part 4 Summary
Although not strictly mandatory, encouraging safe transport arrangements demonstrates responsible risk management and may reduce exposure following alcohol-related incidents.
Section G: Best Practice Checklist – Managing Drunk at Work Cases Lawfully
Alcohol at work disciplinary UK cases are rarely complex in principle. The complexity arises in execution. Employers who follow a structured and proportionate approach significantly reduce exposure to employment tribunal claims.
The following checklist reflects current best practice in 2026.
1. Before an incident occurs
Prevention is more defensible than reaction.
- Maintain a clear alcohol at work policy.
- Classify intoxication as potential gross misconduct where appropriate.
- Define testing rules clearly.
- Train managers on how to handle suspected intoxication.
- Ensure consistency across departments.
- Provide confidential support pathways.
- Embed expectations within induction processes.
Clear communication reduces ambiguity when disciplinary action is later required.
Section G – Part 1 Summary
A defensible position begins before misconduct occurs. Policy clarity and manager training reduce legal risk.
2. When an incident arises
If an employee is suspected of being drunk at work:
- Manage immediate safety risk.
- Remove from safety-critical duties if necessary.
- Document observations objectively.
- Avoid confrontation or public embarrassment.
- Consider whether suspension is proportionate.
- Conduct a fair investigation.
- Invite to disciplinary hearing in writing.
- Allow representation.
- Consider mitigation.
- Provide appeal rights.
Skipping steps to act decisively often increases rather than reduces risk.
Section G – Part 2 Summary
Follow a structured process from investigation to appeal. Procedural shortcuts are a common cause of unfair dismissal findings.
3. Equality Act safeguards
Before dismissal, employers should ask whether there is evidence of possible disability, whether alcohol misuse has been disclosed as dependency, whether medical evidence has been obtained, whether reasonable adjustments have been explored and whether medical referral has been considered.
Failure to consider these questions may expose the organisation to discrimination claims, even where misconduct occurred.
Section G – Part 3 Summary
Where dependency is suspected, Equality Act considerations must be addressed before dismissal decisions are finalised.
4. Proportionality and consistency
Tribunals consistently examine whether similar cases were treated differently, whether dismissal was proportionate to the risk created, whether lesser sanctions were considered and whether warnings were issued previously.
A documented reasoning process strengthens defensibility.
Consistency does not mean identical outcomes in every case. It means having a rational explanation for differences.
Section G – Part 4 Summary
Proportionality and consistent reasoning are central to defending alcohol at work disciplinary UK cases.
5. Documentation and appeal
The final safeguards are written outcome letters explaining reasoning, clear categorisation of misconduct, reference to policy and evidence and an opportunity to appeal.
A meaningful appeal stage can correct procedural defects. Failing to offer a genuine appeal increases compensation risk.
Section G – Part 5 Summary
Clear written reasoning and a genuine appeal process strengthen the legal defensibility of dismissal decisions.
Section H: Conclusion
Alcohol at work disciplinary UK cases are rarely determined by the presence of alcohol alone. They are determined by how the employer responds.
You can dismiss an employee for being drunk at work. You can take disciplinary action where someone is accused of drinking alcohol at work. In serious cases, summary dismissal may be justified. However, legality depends on a reasonable investigation, compliance with the ACAS Code, proportionality of sanction, consistency of treatment, proper consideration of Equality Act risk and a clear and well-communicated policy framework.
Employers who act decisively but lawfully protect both workplace safety and organisational integrity. Employers who react without structure expose themselves to unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
In 2026, tribunals focus on reasonableness, not moral judgment. A compliance-first approach remains the strongest defence.
If you require tailored guidance on managing alcohol-related misconduct or defending claims, our employment law team provides strategic advice and HR advisory support to employers across all sectors.
Section H Summary
A structured, proportionate and policy-driven approach is the most effective way to manage drunk at work cases and reduce tribunal exposure.
Section I: FAQs
Can you dismiss an employee for being drunk at work in the UK?
Yes, dismissal may be fair if the employer has conducted a reasonable investigation, followed the ACAS Code of Practice and concluded that dismissal falls within the range of reasonable responses under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Is being drunk at work automatically gross misconduct?
No. It may amount to gross misconduct, particularly in safety-sensitive roles or where a zero-tolerance policy exists, but this depends on context, impact and proportionality.
Can you fire someone for being an alcoholic in the UK?
Alcohol addiction itself is not automatically a disability under the Equality Act 2010, except where linked to prescribed drugs. However, related physical or mental health conditions may qualify and reasonable adjustments may need to be considered before dismissal.
What happens if an employee refuses an alcohol test?
Refusal may form part of disciplinary proceedings if testing is contractually authorised and proportionate. The reasonableness of the request will be examined by a tribunal.
Do employees need two years’ service to claim unfair dismissal?
Ordinarily, yes. However, employees may still bring claims for discrimination or automatically unfair dismissal regardless of length of service.
Can you discipline someone for being hungover?
A hangover is not normally a protected condition. However, disciplinary action must still be proportionate and consistent with company policy.
Section J: Glossary
| ACAS Code of Practice | Guidance issued by ACAS on disciplinary and grievance procedures. Failure to follow it can increase tribunal compensation by up to 25 percent. |
| Employment Rights Act 1996 | Primary legislation governing unfair dismissal and conduct dismissals in the UK. |
| Gross Misconduct | Serious misconduct that may justify summary dismissal without notice, provided fair procedure is followed. |
| Summary Dismissal | Immediate termination without notice due to gross misconduct. |
| Equality Act 2010 | Legislation prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, including discrimination arising from disability. |
| Reasonable Adjustments | Workplace changes required where an employee has a qualifying disability and is placed at substantial disadvantage. |
| Vicarious Liability | Employer liability for wrongful acts committed by employees in the course of employment. |
| Range of Reasonable Responses | The tribunal test used to assess whether dismissal was within the band of reasonable decisions open to an employer. |
| Special Category Data | Sensitive personal data under UK GDPR, including health information such as alcohol test results. |
Section K: Useful Links
| ACAS – Discipline and Grievance Procedures | https://www.acas.org.uk/discipline-and-grievances-at-work |
| Employment Rights Act 1996 | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents |
| Health and Safety Executive – Alcohol and Drugs at Work | https://www.hse.gov.uk/alcoholdrugs/ |
| Equality Act 2010 | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents |
| Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/20/contents |
