Implementing A Zero-Tolerance Policy

A new tribunal ruling should make every employer stop and think. An autistic kitchen worker at J D Wetherspoon has been awarded £25,412 after the company failed to make reasonable adjustments during a disciplinary process. He’d used his 20% staff discount for a table of seven, not realising the rule capped it at four. Instead of explaining, they called him into a meeting, no notice, no context, and with a manager he’d never even met. He told the tribunal: “They were right to investigate, but I felt like there was a way of doing it. All it had to take was someone to sit down and explain things in a way I understand.” And that’s the point. This wasn’t about the policy, it was about process. Wetherspoon’s “zero-tolerance” approach caused so much stress and anxiety he couldn’t leave his bedroom for months. The tribunal ruled the company failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments. Because fairness isn’t one size fits all. This case should be a wake up call. If you’re managing a disciplinary, know your people. Understand their needs. Communicate clearly. Adapt your approach. Policies don’t make workplaces inclusive, people do. #HR #EmploymentLaw #Inclusion #Neurodiversity #Leadership #PeopleManagement #HRCommunity

The Guest Yelled. The Manager Smiled. And She Cried in the Storage Room. She followed every SOP. She stayed calm. But when the guest lost control — she was left alone. The Story I've visited a friend who owns a hotel in Abuja and reached out with a classic problem: “Our staff don’t last more than 4 months.” So I sat down with a few team members. One housekeeper broke down mid-conversation. Last week, a guest screamed at me. Said I was stupid because his room wasn’t ready. My supervisor just said, ‘Just apologize and move on.’ But I did nothing wrong. I’m tired.” That wasn’t an isolated case. It was a pattern: Guests misbehave. Managers stay silent. Staff take the damage. The Problem: No Protection from Guest Misconduct In hospitality, we’re taught “the guest is always right. But when staff are abused — and leadership chooses guests over people — trust collapses from the inside. The Consequences 💔 Good staff quit silently 📉 Poor service from emotionally drained employees 🔁 High recruitment and training costs 🤐 Guests learn there are no boundaries 💬 Culture of fear replaces hospitality Root Cause Analysis 1. No clear policy on guest behavior boundaries 2. No emotional safety system for staff 3. Managers afraid to confront difficult guests 4. “Service” misused to justify silence The Solution We Introduced ✅ Zero Abuse Policy Guests who insult or intimidate staff are addressed immediately and warned once. Repeated behavior = management intervention or removal. ✅ Staff Incident Reporting System Created a digital and anonymous log for any incident — reviewed weekly by leadership. ✅ Empathy Training for Managers Supervisors trained to support staff during guest tension, not dismiss them. ✅ Guest Code of Conduct A brief line added to booking confirmations: “We treat our guests with warmth and expect the same in return.” ✅ Emotional Recovery Breaks If a staff member experiences abuse, they’re offered a 10-minute pause and support, not told to “shake it off.” The Results After 3 Weeks 🔒 Staff reported feeling “emotionally safe for the first time” 😊 One ex-employee reapplied after hearing about the policy 📈 Staff performance and smiles improved noticeably 💬 2 guests were professionally corrected — and surprisingly thanked the hotel for setting boundaries Advice from Dr Jeff HD Hospitality doesn’t mean humiliation. 💡 Respect must go both ways — from staff to guest, and from guest to staff. If your people don’t feel safe, they’ll never serve with heart.

In Flannery v. Peco Foods, the 8th Circuit just provided a sharp reminder of how far the gap can be between what's "legal" for individuals and what's protected in the workplace. Flannery was fired after a drug test showed THC in his system. He said it came from CBD oil, pointed to the company handbook, and argued his levels were under the listed threshold. None of it mattered. He worked in an at-will employment state, and the court said plainly: employers can terminate "for good cause, no cause, or even a morally wrong cause." That same lesson applies in Ohio, even after the state legalized recreational marijuana use last year and medical marijuana five years earlier. Here's what Ohio law actually says about marijuana and employment: Employers may prohibit use. The statute expressly allows employers to maintain drug-free workplace policies. If your handbook says "zero tolerance," legalization doesn't change that. Employers may test for marijuana. Nothing in the law restricts drug testing for cannabis. Employers can continue to screen applicants and employees. Employers may discipline or terminate. An employee who tests positive—even for lawful off-duty use—can be fired. There's no protection under Ohio law, even if marijuana was consumed legally and outside of work hours. No wrongful-discharge claim. The statute makes clear that firing someone for cannabis use does not create a cause of action. In other words, employees cannot sue for being terminated after a positive test. Unemployment benefits may be denied. If the termination is for violating a drug policy, that can disqualify the employee from unemployment compensation. Ohio's legalization of marijuana is a criminal law reform, not an employment law reform. Employers hold the cards, and the law explicitly protects their right to enforce drug policies as they see fit. Employers, if you want to prohibit your employees from using cannabis, review your policies and communicate clearly. If you intend to enforce a zero-tolerance rule, spell it out and apply it consistently. If you're considering relaxing your policy, weigh the risks—especially around safety-sensitive roles, federal contracts, and workers' comp discounts tied to drug-free workplace programs. No one should assume that what's legal in the dispensary is legal in the workplace. A positive test can still mean discipline, termination, and ineligibility for unemployment.

Roots & Reach of Workplace Bullying, by Linda Crockett MSW, RSW, SEP Workplace bullying (WPB) rarely starts with a dramatic incident. It develops quietly, then spreads. In my Roots & Reach model, the behaviours people notice first are the reach: exclusion, subtle sabotage, shifting expectations, public undermining, reputation attacks, & the slow narrowing of a person’s psychological safety. These outward actions are real & damaging, but they are not where the problem begins. Bullying is sustained by roots that are often hidden in plain sight: Root: Weak accountability - if harmful conduct is tolerated, excused, or minimized, it becomes normalized. Solution: Zero tolerance is action, not lip service. Document, intervene early, & apply fair consequences consistently. Root: Fear of reprisal - when people believe speaking will cost them, silence becomes survival. Solution: Make up the expectation & the norm, & provide protection against retaliation through clear follow-through. Train leaders & staff on safe reporting & response. Root: Leadership skill gaps - without conflict competence & confidence, emotional intelligence, & trauma-informed awareness, leaders can cause harm or enable it. Solution: Prioritize comprehensive, trauma-informed training for all leaders, with ongoing coaching, mentorship, & accountability. Root: Process weaponized to protect power - policies, performance tools, investigations, & “professional standards” can be misused to isolate & discredit, while appearing legitimate. Solution: Walk the policy & legislation talk consistently, fairly, & professionally. Apply consequences to those who abuse power. Mentor & monitor leadership. No favoritism, no exceptions. Root: Normalized disrespect - sarcasm, dismissiveness, inequity, exclusion, and “jokes” at someone’s expense become culture when unaddressed. Solution: All of the above, + bringing in qualified resources with demonstrated expertise in workplace psychological hazards. Ensure supports exist for #leaders, #HR, staff, those harmed, struggling witnesses, & those causing harm who require corrective action & rehabilitation. Root: #Bystanders' self-protection - #silence is often a #safety strategy for #witnesses, but it unintentionally enables #harm to continue. Solution: #Train & equip bystanders with #safe, role-based strategies & real protections. The reach of #workplacebullying, #mobbing, & #lateralviolence is not just discomfort. It can lead to serious #psychologicalinjury, physical #health decline, financial instability, & lasting impacts on families & careers. Taking WPB seriously means intervening early, documenting patterns, using #traumainformed external professional #investigators when required, supporting those affected with qualified/experienced resources (targets, bystanders, perpetrators), & addressing the roots, not just the visible behaviours. If we only manage the reach, the roots remain, & the harm returns. Sample list only

⚖️ LABOUR COURT: Zero Tolerance Does NOT Mean Automatic Dismissal CIPLA Distribution Gateway (Pty) Ltd v Mike Mwale (LC, 10 February 2026) A powerful reminder to employers: Fairness always trumps mechanistic policy enforcement. 🧪 Employee tested 0.019% on a breathalyser. Company had a zero-tolerance alcohol policy. Employee was on a final written warning for a prior alcohol-related offence. No evidence of impairment. No confirmatory blood test conducted. Dismissal followed. 🏛 What the CCMA & Labour Court Said The dismissal was found substantively unfair — and the Labour Court dismissed the employer’s review application. 🔎 Key Takeaways for Employers ⚠️ Zero tolerance ≠ zero fairness Policies cannot be applied mechanically without considering proportionality. 🧠 No impairment? It matters. There was no evidence the employee’s faculties were impaired. 📉 Low alcohol reading counts. 0.019% is significantly below the legal driving limit — context is relevant. 🔬 Breathalyser reliability must be proven. No clear evidence of calibration or confirmatory testing. 📣 Employees should be reminded of confirmatory testing rights. Fair process requires it — especially where dismissal is foreseeable. 📑 Final written warnings are not a licence for automatic dismissal. Progressive discipline still requires proportionality. 🚨 Critical Principle Confirmed A mechanistic application of a zero-tolerance policy is incompatible with the fairness enquiry required under the LRA. Employers bear the onus of proving: The misconduct, reliably, and That dismissal is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. 💼 Employer Risk Insight If you rely solely on a breathalyser reading, Fail to prove calibration, ignore absence of impairment, or treat policy as automatic dismissal :- 👉 You risk reinstatement with backpay. If your workplace has a zero-tolerance alcohol policy, now is the time to review: ✔️ Testing procedures ✔️ Calibration records ✔️ Confirmatory testing processes ✔️ Disciplinary codes wording ✔️ Proportionality guidelines Because policy alone will not save an unfair dismissal. CHA Group

HR received an email with the subject line: "Maya won't be in today. Resignation Effective Immediately." No resignation letter and seven years just gone. Her manager assumed a competitor had poached her. A colleague assumed burnout, she had seemed quieter for months. Someone even joked she'd finally had enough of the Monday pipeline meeting. Nobody in that building knew the real reason, because nobody had ever asked the right question. They had a domestic abuse policy, it had been written, approved, and uploaded to page four of the intranet under "Additional Wellbeing Resources," sat between the cycle-to-work scheme and the flu jab reminder. Nobody had ever mentioned it in onboarding and no manager had been trained on it. The receptionist who twice let Maya's partner wait by the front desk had never been told that mattered. Her manager, watching her performance dip that autumn, followed the standard capability process, because nothing had ever taught him there might be another question to ask first. The policy did its job on paper but really sadly it never got the chance to do its job in real life. The failure usually isn't a missing policy. It's a policy nobody was ever taught to use. So if you're building or reviewing one, "does it exist" isn't the real test. Here's what actually makes it work: → A plain-English definition that covers coercive control and financial abuse, not just physical violence → Real clarity on confidentiality: who sees a disclosure, where it's stored, what legally can't stay private → Flexibility on time, attendance and performance, so a dip gets a conversation instead of a warning → A safety plan for the workplace itself, because if he knows where she works, the office isn't neutral ground → Mandatory manager training and a named contact, not "any manager" winging it in the moment → A named route to specialist support, beyond a poster on the back of a toilet door → Honest thinking about employees who cause harm, not just employees who experience it → A policy that's actively introduced and revisited,. I've broken down what belongs in each of these, and why, in my most recent blog which you can find when you click my shiny website button! If you lead people or HR, it's worth finding out whether your policy would survive contact with the person it's supposed to support. That's a conversation worth having. Let's talk. #DomesticAbuseAwareness #HRPolicy #SaferWorkplaces #DutyOfCare #WorkplaceDomesticAbuse

LABOUR COURT REAFFIRMS FAIRNESS TRUMPS ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICIES ON ALCOHOL In Chill Beverages International (Pty) Ltd v CCMA & Others, a warehouse controller failed a routine breathalyser test. He did not smell of alcohol nor did he display visible signs of intoxication, was a first offender with an unblemished 6 year record, and explained that the alcohol reading came from a cough syrup he’d taken on his way to work which he was unaware contained alcohol. Nevertheless, he was dismissed on the basis of the Company’s zero-tolerance policy regarding alcohol. The Labour Court reaffirmed that a zero-tolerance policy is only defensible when the employer can show that strict application is truly necessary. Because disciplinary action must still be substantively fair, the Court found the dismissal substantively unfair: the employee showed no signs of intoxication, had an unblemished record, and, in its view, credibly explained the positive breath-alcohol result as the effect of cough mixture. Therefore, even the strictest zero-tolerance policy cannot sidestep the Labour Relations Act’s requirement that dismissal be substantively fair. Each case must be judged on its own merits, considering the individual circumstances, safety risks, as well as mitigating and aggravating factors.

This is what “failure to act” really costs: £65,000 and a woman’s sense of safety at work. A former JD Sports employee has settled a sexual harassment claim against her employer and been awarded £65,000 after being slapped on the bottom by a male supervisor. Sadly, this isn’t just an isolated story, it’s indicative of a culture which normalises, tolerates and legitimises sexual harassment and violence. Sexual harassment isn’t “banter”; it’s unlawful, harmful, and can have lasting emotional and professional impacts. The settlement of £65k was awarded because the workplace failed to protect her and act quickly and appropriately. All employees, whether full-time, part-time, young workers, or students — have the right to a safe, dignified, and respectful workplace. Employers must have clear policies, strong procedures, a trained workforce and trained leaders who take complaints seriously and act swiftly. True zero-tolerance isn’t just about “words on a page”, it’s about enforcement, support and accountability. If we want workplaces where everyone feels safe and respected, we must do more than tick boxes, we must equip organisations with the culture, leadership, and mechanisms that prevent it. No one should have to tolerate harassment to keep their job.

𝗦𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆? Two employees break the same rule. One gets fired. The other gets another chance. That’s not just a management headache; it’s a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen. A Michigan federal judge just refused to dismiss a race discrimination case where a Black security guard was fired for sleeping on duty, while a white co-worker with four similar violations wasn’t terminated at the time — and was later rehired after a disputed firing. The court said those differences in discipline were enough to let a jury decide whether race played a role. Because both guards had the same job, same supervisors, and same rulebook, their outcomes didn’t line up. The company argued it followed policy, but its explanations about a “points reset” and a “no-discipline-before-reset” rule weren’t written down. That inconsistency, the court explained, could let a jury find that race mattered. As the Sixth Circuit has put it, 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦-𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. Takeaways for HR and employers: ✅ Apply policies consistently. ✅ Document every exception. ✅ Train managers to understand when discretion is appropriate — and when it’s not. ✅ Review past discipline before making a final call. Quiet inconsistencies can become loud courtroom exhibits. 📄 Full opinion: https://lnkd.in/enZXjRpq #TheEmployerHandbook #EmploymentLaw #HumanResources

A recent federal court decision provides a few lessons for employers to avoid a jury in a drug testing case. In 𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘷. 𝘖𝘬𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘢 𝘋𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 (W.D. Okla., May 2026), a probation officer was fired after a for-cause drug test came back positive for amphetamines. The twist: she had an Adderall prescription for ADHD that her employer had known about for four years. The Medical Review Officer (MRO) tried three times to reach her, couldn't make contact, and reported the result as positive. HR moved forward with termination without ever alerting the employee that the MRO was trying to reach her. The court dismissed the discrimination claim. Firing someone based on a legitimately positive drug test, standing alone, isn't direct evidence of disability discrimination, even when the employer knows about a prescription. That part went the employer's way. But the failure-to-accommodate claim survived. The court found enough evidence to send that claim to a jury because: 1️⃣ The MRO may have had the employee's cell number and still didn't reach her 2️⃣ HR knew the MRO couldn't make contact and said nothing to the employee 3️⃣ The supervisor knew about the prescription and didn't escalate it through HR Your drug testing policy may say employees get an opportunity to explain a positive result. If your HR team doesn't actively help make that opportunity real, a jury may decide you never actually gave it. The practical takeaways for employers who conduct drug testing: ✅ Build MRO contact into your HR process. When HR learns the MRO couldn't reach an employee, HR should follow up with the employee directly. Don't assume the MRO's failed attempts are the end of the story. ✅ Document what you know and when. If supervisors are aware of a prescription medication before a test comes back positive, that information needs to move through the right channels in writing. ✅ Don't let automatic termination policies run on autopilot. A zero-tolerance drug policy is legally defensible, but only if the verification process that precedes termination actually worked. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require reasonable accommodation, and courts are increasingly skeptical when employers claim they offered the process but employees failed to use it, especially when the employer's own inaction contributed to the breakdown. #EmploymentLaw #HRCompliance #DrugTesting #ADA #ReasonableAccommodation #WorkplaceLaw #EmployerDefense #HumanResources #BusinessLaw