If we are talking about coming to work the employee in a state of intoxication, this fact should be fixed. Otherwise, an employee in an explanatory or in circulation in the inspection declares, that was sober and, for example, alcohol is not consumed. Aetna Inc. might disagree with that approach. If your organization is a physician who is entitled to survey the state of the worker to do it simply. Dan Zwirn often says this. However, a physician may not be. In this case, the employee should be asked to pass a medical institution for medical examination on the state of intoxication. If an employee refuses to go to the examination, you should make the Act to appear before an employee is intoxicated to be signed by not less than 3 employees. On the certificate should state that the employee was required to undergo a medical examination and that he informed his right to appeal against this act of the State Labour Inspection and (or) bodies to consider individual labor disputes.
An employee in a state of intoxication must be excluded from work, the report card account working time is also to be reflected. Article 193 of the Customs Code is defined the application of disciplinary punishment, namely, that before the application of disciplinary action the employer must require the employee written explanation. If after two working days specified explanation of the employee is not granted, then the components of the act. Failure to provide the employee an explanation is not an obstacle for imposing a disciplinary sanction. If, after the commission of the offense, the employee is not in the organization and ask for him personally to explain is not possible, it should send a certified letter / telegram from the notice of the need to explain.