THE COURT DEFENDED THE EMPLOYER IN A DISPUTE OVER THE DISMISSAL OF AN INEBRIATED EMPLOYEE

The plaintiff came to work drunk and refused to undergo a medical examination, as a result of which he was dismissed under the article. Having appealed to the court, he stated that the employer had not provided evidence of his being drunk and demanded reinstatement at work, compensation for forced absenteeism, compensation for moral damage and representation expenses (case No. 78-KG23-16-K3).

Despite the testimony and the arguments presented by the defendant, the courts of three instances considered them insufficient to confirm the disputed fact of intoxication. The courts proceeded from the fact that despite other evidence (acts of the employer, the plaintiff's explanatory note, reports and referral for medical examination), without a doubt it is possible to prove the appearance at work drunk only by a medical report. The dismissal was declared illegal, and the demands were satisfied.

The Supreme Court pointed out the error of the lower courts: they did not take into account all the circumstances of the case and did not properly examine the evidence presented by the defendant. The plaintiff refused to undergo a medical examination, and the employer could not force him. Thus, the defendant did everything possible to obtain a medical report.

The Civil Collegium recalled that in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, the state of alcoholic intoxication is confirmed not only by a medical report, but also by other evidence. Since the examination, due to the refusal on the part of the plaintiff, was not carried out, the courts had to examine other evidence presented by the parties, which was not done.

The acts of the lower courts were canceled, and the case was sent for new consideration.