adUnits.push({
code: ‘Rpp_economia_economia_Nota_Interna1’,
mediaTypes: {
banner: {
sizes: (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone|android|iPod/i)) ? [[300, 250], [320, 460], [320, 480], [320, 50], [300, 100], [320, 100]] : [[300, 250], [320, 460], [320, 480], [320, 50], [300, 100], [320, 100], [635, 90]]
}
},
bids: [{
bidder: ‘appnexus’,
params: {
placementId: ‘14149971’
}
},{
bidder: ‘rubicon’,
params: {
accountId: ‘19264’,
siteId: ‘314342’,
zoneId: ‘1604128’
}
},{
bidder: ‘amx’,
params: {
tagId: ‘MTUybWVkaWEuY29t’
}
},{
bidder: ‘oftmedia’,
params: {
placementId: navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone|android|iPod/i) ? ‘22617692’: ‘22617693’
}
}]
});
Last year, the Supreme Court found unfounded a worker’s request for reinstatement and wages after being fired for working while intoxicated. Despite this, some labor professionals point out that alcohol consumption in the workplace is not grounds for dismissal.
So, in what cases can drinking alcohol at work lead to a fair dismissal?
In this case, in the Labor Law No. 26374-2019-Arequipa worker He was driving heavy machinery and the situation was classified as a “serious offence” under the Productivity and Competitiveness Act.
At the same time, the repeated presence at the workplace in a state of intoxication or under the influence of drugs or drugs was taken into account as the basis for dismissal.
The same law specifies that even if the act of working under the influence of alcohol is not repeated, the same grounds for dismissal apply “when by the nature of the function or work it is exceptionally serious.”
In this case, the claim was made because the dismissed worker applying for reinstatement operated heavy machinery and endangered the lives of other workers.
For other occasions when a worker gets drunk in work centerbut he has already finished his work, this indicates that the dismissal is not necessarily lawful.
In 2016, an electrical technician was performing maintenance in Cajamarca and traveled with other colleagues to his place of origin (Trujillo) in a service van. On the way, he drinks a “macerated drink”, after which the car that transported them, driven by a worker, is run over.
Due to the aforementioned fact, the company suspends the employee, using the Labor Productivity and Competitiveness Act as justification, which forces the employee to initiate legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court granted the worker’s motion, which asked for it to be annulled. dismissalindicating that “he cannot be accused of serious wrongdoing that warrants his dismissal.”
As they pointed out, the employee performed the assigned service by delivering orders to the responsible manager, while such performance was not carried out while intoxicated, a version that was not refuted by the company.
They added that there would have been seriousness if the dismissed worker had been the same person who was driving under the influence of alcohol, but since this was not the case, no grounds for dismissal were found.
Source: RPP
I’m Liza Grey, an experienced news writer and author at the Buna Times. I specialize in writing about economic issues, with a focus on uncovering stories that have a positive impact on society. With over seven years of experience in the news industry, I am highly knowledgeable about current events and the ways in which they affect our daily lives.