Dismissal Grounds for Positive Alcohol Test in the Philippines

(Philippine labor-law and workplace-practice guide)

1) The core idea: a “positive alcohol test” is not automatically a dismissal ground

In the Philippines, dismissal must be anchored on a lawful cause and carried out with due process. A positive alcohol test can support dismissal only if it connects to a recognized “just cause” (or in limited contexts, if it shows inability to meet a legitimate job requirement), and the employer can prove the facts with substantial evidence.

So the real legal question is not “Can I be dismissed because I tested positive?” but:

• What company rule or job standard did I violate?
• Does the violation amount to a lawful just cause for termination?
• Was the test and the disciplinary process fair, reliable, and properly documented?

2) Legal framework that governs alcohol-related dismissal

A. Just causes for termination (Labor Code framework)

Philippine law recognizes “just causes” (employee-related causes) that allow termination when the employee’s act is blameworthy and work-related. A positive alcohol test typically gets argued under these just causes:

1. Serious misconduct
2. Gross and habitual neglect of duties (sometimes invoked if intoxication leads to repeated unsafe/poor performance)
3. Fraud or willful breach of trust (less common for alcohol unless tied to falsification, deception, safety sign-offs, etc.)
4. Commission of a crime/offense against the employer or employer’s family (rare for alcohol alone; more relevant if intoxication leads to violence, property damage, etc.)
5. Analogous causes (violations similar in gravity to the listed causes, often used for grave policy breaches)

Most alcohol cases are framed as serious misconduct or an analogous cause (grave violation of a lawful company policy), especially for safety-sensitive roles.

B. Management prerogative and company rules

Employers generally have the right to create reasonable workplace rules on safety, discipline, and productivity—including policies against reporting for work under the influence, drinking on duty, bringing alcohol into restricted premises, or having a prohibited blood alcohol level for safety-sensitive positions.

But enforceability depends on whether the rule is:

• Lawful (not contrary to law or public policy),
• Reasonable (related to the job and workplace safety/operations),
• Known to employees (properly communicated), and
• Consistently enforced (no selective discipline).

C. Due process: procedural and substantive

Even if the act is serious, dismissal can still be illegal if due process is not observed.

• Substantive due process: there must be a lawful cause, and the penalty must be proportionate.

• Procedural due process: generally requires the two-notice rule and an opportunity to be heard:

  1. Notice to Explain (NTE) with specific facts and the rule violated
  2. Opportunity to respond/hearing or conference
  3. Notice of Decision stating the basis for the penalty

3) When a positive alcohol test is most likely a valid dismissal ground

A positive test becomes legally “termination-capable” when it supports a work-related, willful, and serious breach. Common scenarios:

A. Reporting for duty or being on duty while under the influence

If the employer can show that the employee:

• was actually impaired (behavioral indicators, incident reports, supervisor/witness accounts), or
• violated a clear rule prohibiting alcohol in the system while on duty, especially for safety-sensitive positions,

then it may be treated as serious misconduct or grave violation of company rules.

Higher risk roles (where dismissal is more defensible):

• drivers/operators, heavy equipment, forklift operators
• jobs involving firearms/security
• roles with hazardous chemicals, electrical work, heights, machinery
• healthcare roles impacting patient safety
• aviation/maritime safety functions

B. Alcohol use that causes or contributes to a workplace incident

If alcohol is tied to:

• accidents, near-misses, injuries
• property damage
• safety protocol breaches
• fighting, threats, harassment
• serious errors causing major loss

then dismissal is more likely to be upheld, because the employer can prove actual workplace harm/risk.

C. Repeated violations (progressive discipline situations)

Even if a first positive test may be penalized by suspension or final warning, repeat offenses make termination more defensible—especially where the employee was previously warned and continued the behavior.

D. Refusal to undergo testing (when testing is policy-based and reasonable)

If the company has a lawful and reasonable policy requiring testing under certain conditions (e.g., post-incident or reasonable suspicion) and the employee refuses without valid justification, the refusal itself may be treated as insubordination/misconduct or policy violation.

4) When dismissal based on a positive alcohol test becomes legally weak

A. “Positive” with no clear workplace rule or job nexus

If there is no clear policy (or it was not communicated), or the rule is overly broad (e.g., punishing lawful off-duty drinking with no safety nexus), dismissal is harder to justify.

B. Unreliable testing procedures or questionable results

Dismissal weakens if:

• the device wasn’t calibrated or the method is unreliable
• chain-of-custody is unclear (for lab tests)
• no confirmatory test where one is normally expected
• improper administration (timing, contamination risk, operator error)
• results were not properly disclosed and explained to the employee
• the employer cannot present competent evidence (documents, lab report authenticity, qualified witness)

C. Disproportionate penalty for a first, minor, non-safety incident

Philippine labor standards emphasize proportionality. If the employee is not safety-sensitive, there was no incident, no prior offense, and impairment is not shown, immediate dismissal may be challenged as too harsh—depending on the policy and circumstances.

D. Selective enforcement or discrimination

If others similarly situated were not punished, or enforcement is targeted, dismissal risks being struck down as unequal treatment.

5) What employers must prove to justify dismissal (practical elements)

To defend termination based on a positive alcohol test, an employer typically needs to show:

1. Existence of a valid company policy or job standard

   • clear prohibition/threshold
   • communicated to employees (handbook acknowledgment, memos, training)

2. Work-related violation

   • on-duty impairment, reporting for duty under influence, or breach of a safety rule relevant to the job

3. Willfulness or blameworthiness (for serious misconduct)

   • not purely accidental or medically explained
   • employee knew or should have known the rule and risk

4. Substantial evidence

   • test result plus supporting circumstances (incident report, witness statements, supervisor observations, CCTV where applicable)

5. Observance of due process

   • proper notices and opportunity to be heard
   • reasoned decision based on evidence

6) Testing policies: what a “defensible” alcohol testing program usually includes

A strong policy often defines:

• When testing happens

  • pre-employment (for certain roles)
  • random (typically for safety-sensitive roles)
  • post-incident
  • reasonable suspicion (with documented indicators)

• Testing method and standards

  • breath alcohol testing vs. blood/urine testing
  • confirmatory testing rules
  • cut-off/threshold (especially for safety-sensitive roles)

• Documentation

  • standardized observation checklist (slurred speech, odor, gait, behavior)
  • incident report templates
  • device calibration records or lab accreditation documents
  • chain-of-custody steps where applicable

• Employee rights and process

  • disclosure of results
  • chance to explain (e.g., medications, medical conditions, timing)
  • ability to request re-test/confirmatory test (if policy allows)
  • privacy protections and data handling

7) Privacy and data protection considerations (Philippine context)

Alcohol test results are sensitive personal information in practice. Employers should:

• collect only what is necessary for safety/operations
• limit access to HR/authorized officers
• store securely and retain only as needed
• use results only for legitimate workplace purposes
• ensure employee notices/consents align with lawful processing grounds

Weak privacy handling won’t always void a dismissal by itself, but it can create legal exposure and can undermine fairness.

8) Employee defenses and common issues in disputes

An employee challenging dismissal often argues:

• No clear policy / not properly informed
• Test is unreliable (no calibration, no confirmatory test, poor chain-of-custody)
• No proof of impairment (positive alone doesn’t show inability to work, especially if not safety-sensitive)
• Off-duty drinking only, no nexus to work
• Penalty is excessive (no prior offense, good record, no incident)
• Due process violations (no proper notices, no real chance to explain)
• Equal protection/selective discipline (others not punished)

9) Alcohol dependence and “compassion” measures: does it prevent dismissal?

Alcohol dependence may be treated medically as a condition, but it does not automatically immunize an employee from discipline—especially if workplace safety is compromised or rules are knowingly violated.

However, in practice, employers strengthen defensibility (and reduce risk) when they implement:

• Employee Assistance Programs (EAP)
• referral to counseling/rehab
• last-chance agreements (for non-safety critical contexts)
• progressive discipline where appropriate

This matters most where the case is borderline (no incident, first offense, non-safety role).

10) Industry-specific “zero tolerance” environments

Some industries operate under stricter safety regimes (transport, aviation, maritime, security, construction, heavy industry). In these contexts, policies often demand:

• no alcohol while on duty
• stringent testing after incidents
• immediate removal from safety functions upon positive results

Dismissal is generally more defensible when the role is safety-critical and the policy is clear, documented, and consistently applied.

11) Practical checklists

A. For employers (to make dismissal defensible)

• Have a written, reasonable, well-communicated alcohol policy
• Define testing triggers, method, and thresholds
• Use reliable testing and keep calibration/chain-of-custody records
• Pair positive results with documented workplace nexus (duty status, incident, safety risk)
• Apply consistent discipline
• Follow two-notice rule and allow meaningful explanation
• Issue a decision that clearly states facts, evidence, and rule violated

B. For employees (if facing discipline)

• Request the policy basis and the specific rule alleged violated
• Ask for the test documentation (method, time, operator, calibration, chain-of-custody)
• Provide timely explanation (medication, medical condition, timing, exposure, procedural flaws)
• Check if similarly situated employees were treated differently
• Document due process gaps (no proper notice/hearing)

12) Bottom line principles

1. A positive alcohol test can justify dismissal when it proves a work-related, serious, willful breach, especially in safety-sensitive roles or where there is an incident.
2. A positive test alone is not always enough—policy clarity, reliability of testing, proof of workplace nexus, proportionality, and due process matter.
3. The most common successful legal theories are serious misconduct and grave violation of company rules/analogous causes, supported by substantial evidence and proper procedure.

---

If you want, paste your company’s policy clause (or the facts of a scenario), and I can map it to the most likely “just cause” category, identify weak points in the evidence/process, and suggest how a labor arbiter would likely analyze it.