External

  • “...an employee who is under the influence of alcohol or a drug (other than a drug prescribed for the employee by a legally qualified medical practitioner or dentist and used by the employee in accordance with that prescription) shall be taken to be guilty of serious and wilful misconduct.” [section 4 (13)]

This provision links back to section 14 (3), where the act of being under the influence of non-prescribed drugs or alcohol automatically assumes a serious and wilful misconduct status.

The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (SRCC) has indicated that “under the influence” is anything at or above 0.05.

Example

A worker attended a BBQ at the employer's premises organised by the employer, and there drank nine or ten cans of beer.  He was later found to have a blood alcohol concentration of .21.  He was injured in a car accident on his journey home.  The employer had advised that those drinking should not drive and offered to arrange alternative transport.

Compensation was not payable, as the employee was found to have intentionally and deliberately consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and intentionally and deliberately drove his car.  This resulted in serious and wilful misconduct.

Hills v. Brambles Holdings Ltd (1987) AWCCD ¶73-833 (CCH)

However, once this particular provision has been satisfied, it is important not to forget there are other considerations to be met under 14 (3) before claims in this category may be rejected.  There is not automatic rejection where the only issue established is that the employee was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Taking the above example further, had the employee sustained serious and permanent impairment, or had died as a result of his injuries, his claim for compensation would have been allowed under section 14 (3).