Moss, Rolling Stones, and employers' rights
from times uk online
So what would you do if one of your employees appeared in the press, snorting cocaine? Randall Northam finds there's little most employers can do
What would you do with Kate Moss? Seriously: what would you do if you employed Kate Moss?
In the past couple of weeks, several companies have dropped the supermodel after pictures of her snorting cocaine were plastered all over the press. H&M have a policy that their models be "healthy, wholesome and sound", so it’s no surprise that they terminated her contract.
NI_MPU('middle');And the same sort of thing would apply to other celebrity contracts... but what if she was an ordinary employee and took recreational drugs and by some mischance got her picture doing it into the papers?
Would you, as an employer, have any rights to sack such an employee on the spot? Unlikely, unless your contracts have a morals clause in them, and most normal employment contracts do not.
So unless you catch an employee taking drugs at work (or alcohol for that matter) things are much more complicated. There are millions of people in the UK who use illegal drugs. You would have to prove that the drug-taking had a detrimental effect on the employee’s work, even if their use led to a criminal conviction.
Obviously, those whose work involves driving usually have contract clauses stipulating that, if they turn up drunk, with a hangover or under the influence of other drugs, the employer has a case for dismissal.
Other options? Well, offering to help employees you know take drugs can lead to being told to mind your own business. You could institute drug-testing at work. In the United States, this is commonplace. Nearly 50 per cent of firms regularly test their employees but, according to a Mori poll, only 4 per cent of British companies had done so by 2003, although more were thinking about it.
They can’t have done much about it because data is pretty thin on the ground.
It’s a ticklish area. Obviously if health and safety is an issue then testing would be reasonable but if it’s for office workers, why should a company have the right to interfere in what happens outside the office? Clearly recreational drug users would be caught by tests but if they do not do it in company time and it does not affect their work, then what right does a firm have to interfere?
Things have changed. Many years ago, when the most important thing seemed to be whether you preferred the Rolling Stones or the Beatles (and before we had any idea what drugs any of the band members might have been using), I worked for a brewery in their stock-taking department.
We had two 20-minute breaks each day, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, when we were encouraged to sample the firm’s products.
It was commonplace to have a pint-and-a-half at each break, even though I was not yet 20. Some of the older employees had even more. But the bosses smiled fondly at us.