Drink and drugs in veterinary workplaces

Practice staff work with equipment and medications that have the potential to cause harm to their charges, selves and colleagues. Add in a rogue member of staff who is intoxicated through abuse of either drink or drugs, and serious risks can arise.

In September of 2024, the British Safety Council wrote that 40% of workplace accidents were linked to substance misuse, alcohol was responsible for 20% to 30% of all recorded accidents and half of all workplace fatalities involved alcohol.

But beyond the matter of alcohol abuse is the recreational use of drugs. The physical incarnation may be different, but the effect on the individual can be just as harmful.

It is why the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has a page on its website called “Managing drug and alcohol misuse at work”, and why it was announced in January 2025 that an Oxford Brookes University research team had been awarded a grant to study alcohol use in the UK veterinary profession.

The issues

Tina Chander, head of employment law at HCR Law, considers safety, reliability and productivity to be issues in the workplace and cause for concern when substances are involved. She said: “Employees under the influence of drugs or alcohol can experience impaired judgement, slower reaction times and reduced concentration. This increases the risk of accidents that could lead to serious injury or even fatalities.”

Risks aside, she said that from an employer’s perspective, under the Health and Safety at Work etc, Act 1974: “Employers must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees and others. Allowing impaired staff to work could expose the business to liability if accidents occur.”

But beyond safety matters, substance misuse causes absenteeism, mistakes, poor decision-making, poor performance and strained working relationships. It may also lead to reputational damage for an employer if an employee’s conduct affects customers or the public.

Telltale signs

As to the signs of substance abuse, they include the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, unsteady gait, bloodshot eyes, and erratic and unpredictable behaviour. Colleagues may also notice a decline in performance, unexplained absences, poor timekeeping, or an increase in accidents and near misses.

The signs are clear to see – if looked for – and small things over time may point to a problem.

Regardless, Tina advised against jumping to conclusions, as symptoms of stress, fatigue, or medical and mental health conditions may appear similar. She considers it “best practice to record observations objectively and refer matters to HR or occupational health for assessment, rather than making direct accusations.

“Confidentiality must always be maintained,” she said.

Managing the situation

When suspicions of abuse arise, employers have a duty of care to employees, but also need to keep in mind the matter at hand. They should act promptly, but fairly.

Tina said that if someone appears impaired, suspension may be appropriate while the matter is investigated.

She added: “This should be treated as a neutral act, not a disciplinary sanction. During the investigation, employers should seek to determine whether the issue is one of misconduct (say, drinking during work hours) or dependency (which may indicate a potential health problem).”

She said that where dependency is suspected, offering support such as counselling, referral to occupational health or participation in an employee assistance programme can be an effective first step. Dismissal should only follow if the employee refuses help, continues to breach policy or poses a serious health and safety risk.

Legally, addiction itself is not classed as a disability, but related conditions such as depression can be protected, so it is important to handle each case carefully and document every step.

Tina said managers should “tread carefully to avoid claims of discrimination or unfair dismissal, and should always follow a fair and documented process consistent with the Acas Codes of Practice”.

Training

Training is essential for prevention and early intervention. It is interesting that, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), only around one-quarter of organisations provide regular training for managers on handling alcohol or drug issues, and just 3 in 10 offer clear guidance on how to deal with disclosures or signpost staff to help.

But training should go further, reckons Tina. She said that employers should have a drugs and alcohol policy in place, all staff should receive training, and policies should be consistently applied to all staff to prevent the risk of discrimination claims.

Off-site consumption

A natural question to pose is whether employers can act when consumption is outside of the workplace and/or off-site.

Here, Tina explained that “disciplinary action can be taken if off-duty conduct affects the employee’s performance, attendance or the reputation of the business”. She gave an example: an employee who attends work while still under the influence or whose off-site behaviour (such as a drug-related conviction or inappropriate social media post) brings the employer into disrepute could face action. That said, she warned employers to not intrude unduly into private life. She said: “Any disciplinary measures must be proportionate, justified and in line with the company’s policy and employment contract.”

Testing and search policies

Employers wanting to reduce the incidence of substance abuse may wish to implement testing or search policies. However, they do not have carte blanche to act. The CIPD said that “testing should only be used where there’s a clear safety or business need rather than as a blanket measure”. Random testing can easily undermine trust and risk breaching privacy laws.

Then, there is the UK GDPR. Drug and alcohol testing involves processing sensitive health data, which is classed, by law, as special category data and has a higher level of protection due to it increasing the risk of interference with fundamental rights or discrimination.

Consequently, employees must give informed consent, and the policy should clearly set out when testing may occur (random, post-incident or for-cause), how samples are handled and results stored, confidentiality safeguards and the consequences of refusal.

Tina concluded: “If an employee refuses a legitimate and proportionate test without reasonable justification, this may be treated as a disciplinary matter – but only if the policy expressly provides for it and the employee has been made aware in advance”.

Summary

The legal risks relating to substance abuse extend beyond employment law.

Employers that fail to manage alcohol or drug misuse effectively could breach their duties under health and safety legislation, potentially leading to HSE action or corporate manslaughter liability if serious harm occurs.