Alcohol Intoxication as Just Cause for Employment Termination: A Comparative Medical–Legal Perspective in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico


<!-- metadata commented in wiki content


====Alcohol Intoxication as Just Cause for Employment Termination: A Comparative Medical–Legal Perspective in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico====

==Vanegas-Mondragón, Claudia Andrea<sup>1</sup>; Vanegas-López, Eduardo Antonio<sup>2</sup>==

==Affiliations:==

<sup>1</sup>Social Service Intern, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico

<sup>2</sup>PhD in Administrative and Labor Law, International Institute of Law and the State, Mexico City, Mexico

==Corresponding Author:==

Claudia Andrea Vanegas Mondragón

[mailto:cvamond2099@gmail.com cvamond2099@gmail.com]

Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico
-->

===Abstract===

'''Objective:''' To analyze the medical–legal framework regarding drunkenness as grounds for termination of the employment relationship in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico, considering alcoholism as a disease and its implications for occupational health.

'''Methods:''' A documentary and comparative review of labor legislation, jurisprudence, and doctrine was conducted in the four countries. Additionally, medical literature on alcoholism published between 2000 and 2023 was reviewed, using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO, and ILO sources [1–3,5,9,13].

'''Results:''' Although labor laws in Latin America recognize drunkenness as just cause for dismissal [4–7], judicial practice has progressively incorporated principles of proportionality, human dignity, and the right to health [13,14]. National jurisprudence shows variability: while some courts uphold dismissal, others consider alcoholism a disease requiring treatment and rehabilitation [16–21]. The medical literature highlights the health burden of alcohol use and the need for workplace interventions focused on prevention and reintegration [9–12,22].

'''Conclusion:''' Dismissal due solely to drunkenness is insufficient without evidence of recurrence, direct harm to productivity, or risk to third-party integrity. A balanced approach integrating occupational health policies, rehabilitation measures, and proportional sanctions is recommended.

'''Keywords:''' Drunkenness; alcoholism; labor law; occupational health; dismissal.

===Introduction===

The issue of alcohol intoxication in the workplace requires not only a legal but also a public health approach [11,22]. Although Latin American labor codes have historically maintained drunkenness as grounds for dismissal [4–7], the recognition of alcoholism as a chronic disease compels us to reconsider punitive measures in favor of preventive and rehabilitative interventions [1–3,9,10]. Beyond national regulations, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have emphasized that workplace health strategies must integrate substance abuse policies, support systems, and reintegration mechanisms for affected workers [12,15]. This introduction highlights the multidimensional nature of the problem, combining occupational safety, human dignity, labor productivity, and healthcare obligations [13,14]. In this sense, analyzing the medical–legal framework in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico allows us to understand the extent to which jurisprudence has evolved from a punitive approach toward one of balance between labor discipline and the right to health [16–21].

===Medical Conceptual Framework===

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10 and ICD-11) recognizes alcohol-related disorders as clinical entities requiring diagnosis and treatment [1,2]. Alcoholism is defined as a harmful consumption pattern characterized by dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal syndrome [3]. Its consequences include alcoholic liver disease, peripheral neuropathy, cognitive decline, and increased morbidity and mortality [9,10]. In the workplace, it negatively affects concentration, coordination, and decision-making, thereby increasing the risk of occupational accidents [11]. From the standpoint of occupational medicine, prevention, early detection, and rehabilitation are recommended [12].

===Legal Conceptual Framework===

Latin American labor law recognizes the figure of termination of the employment relationship for just cause [4–7]. In most jurisdictions, drunkenness during working hours is expressly included as grounds for dismissal. However, courts have nuanced this provision by applying the principles of proportionality, human dignity, and the right to health [13,14]. Comparative law has evolved toward the humanization of labor relations, considering alcoholism as a disease that limits automatic sanctions, in accordance with International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions [15].

===Methodology===

A documentary and comparative review of labor legislation, judicial criteria, and doctrine in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico was conducted, complemented with medical literature on alcoholism published between 2000 and 2023 [3,6,9]. Academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), WHO and ILO documents, as well as relevant national jurisprudence, were consulted [5,13].

===Comparative Results===

'''Argentina'''<br/>The Labor Contract Law contemplates drunkenness as grounds for dismissal [4]. Jurisprudence is divergent: some rulings reject termination by recognizing alcoholism as a disease [16], while others uphold it as serious labor misconduct. The Supreme Court has held that recurrence and direct impairment of productivity justify sanctions [17].

'''Peru'''<br/>The Law on Labor Productivity and Competitiveness defines repeated drunkenness as a serious offense [5]. However, the Constitutional Court has considered dismissal disproportionate in the absence of prior disciplinary records, ordering reinstatement in certain cases [18].

'''Costa Rica'''<br/>The Labor Code expressly prohibits presenting to work under the influence of alcohol [6]. Nevertheless, courts have privileged proportionality, overturning dismissals when the sanction is deemed excessive [19]. There is also an observable requirement for occupational health programs [20].

'''Mexico'''<br/>The Federal Labor Law, Article 47, Section XIII, establishes drunkenness as grounds for termination [7]. The Supreme Court has differentiated between “alcohol odor” and actual drunkenness, requiring objective medical evidence and a proportionality analysis [21].

===Medical–Legal Discussion===

The interdisciplinary perspective highlights that the strict application of dismissal on the grounds of drunkenness is gradually giving way to a more nuanced approach. While workplace safety and productivity remain legitimate concerns, automatic termination contradicts modern understandings of alcoholism as a disease [1–3,9]. Employers bear both a duty of care towards their employees and a responsibility to ensure safe working conditions [12,15]. In practice, this implies the adoption of occupational health protocols, access to rehabilitation programs, and awareness campaigns that aim to reduce stigma [20,22]. Moreover, proportionality as a guiding principle requires that disciplinary measures be gradual and progressive, reserving dismissal for cases where recurrence or direct endangerment occurs [13,14,16–21].

===Conclusions===

:1. Labor law in Latin America continues to recognize drunkenness as grounds for dismissal, yet judicial practice has progressively limited its automatic application [16–21].

:2. Alcoholism should be primarily addressed as a medical condition requiring prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, not as misconduct [1–3,9,10].

:3. Employers should adopt occupational health programs including early detection, referral systems, and reintegration plans [12,15,20].

:4. Legal reforms should integrate public health perspectives, ILO conventions, and WHO recommendations [15,22].

:5. Future research should evaluate the economic and social benefits of rehabilitation-focused approaches compared to punitive models [9,12].

==Appendices==

===Table 1. Comparative Legal Framework===

{| style="width: 100%;border-collapse: collapse;" 
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|'''Country'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|'''Legal Basis'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|'''Grounds for Dismissal'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|'''Judicial Criteria'''
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Argentina
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Ley de Contrato de Trabajo N° 20.744
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Drunkenness during work
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Divergent: some rulings recognixe disease, others vaidate dismissal
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Peru
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Ley de Productividad y Competitividad Laboral
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Repeated drunkenness
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Dismissal overturned if disproportionate or without prior sanctions
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Costa Rica
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Código de Trabajo
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Showing up intoxicated
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Courts prioritize proportionality and require health programs
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Mexico
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Ley Federal del Trabajo, Art. 47
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Drunkenness at work
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;"|Supreme Court requires objective proof and proportionality analysis
|}


===Table 2. Medical Perspective on Alcoholism===

{| style="width: 100%;border-collapse: collapse;" 
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Aspect'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Description'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Workplace Impact'''
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Definition
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Chronic progressive disease with dependence, tolerance, withdrawal
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Decreased performance, absenteeism
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Health Consequences
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Liver disease, neuropathy, cognitive impairment
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Higher accident risk, reduced decision-making capacity
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|WHO/ICD Classification
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Recognize as disorder (ICD-10, ICD-11)
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Requires diagnosis and rehabilitation, not punishment
|}


===Table 3. Principles in Jurisprudence===

{| style="width: 100%;border-collapse: collapse;" 
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Principle'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Legal Application'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Implication'''
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Proportionality
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Sanction must match severity and recurrence
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Protects against disproportionate dismissals
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Human Dignity
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Workers treated as persons, not mere resources
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Encourages rehability measures
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Right to Health
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Alcoholism recognized as a disease
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Employers should support treatment and reintegration
|}


===Table 4. International Recommendations===

{| style="width: 100%;border-collapse: collapse;" 
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Organization'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Recommendation'''
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: bottom;"|'''Implementation in Workplace'''
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|WHO
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Alcoholism as health disorder requiring treatment
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Integration of occupational health programs
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|ILO
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Address substance abuse as labor-health issue
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Policies for prevention, rehabilitation, reintegration
|-
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|OECD
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Encourage workplace wellness programs
|  style="border: 1pt solid black;vertical-align: bottom;"|Reduction of productivity losses and absenteeism
|}

==References==

:1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Geneva: WHO; 2010.

:2. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Geneva: WHO; 2019.

:3. MedlinePlus. Alcohol use disorder. National Library of Medicine; 2021. Available from: [https://medlineplus.gov/alcoholusedisorderaud.html https://medlineplus.gov/alcoholusedisorderaud.html]

:4. Ley Nº 20.744 de Contrato de Trabajo. Argentina; 1974.

:5. Decreto Supremo Nº 003-97-TR. Ley de Productividad y Competitividad Laboral. Peru; 1997.

:6. Código de Trabajo. Costa Rica; 1943.

:7. Ley Federal del Trabajo. Mexico; 1970.

:8. Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Semanario Judicial de la Federación. Mexico; 1991.

:9. Rehm J, et al. The global burden of alcohol use disorders. Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(6):465–73.

:10. Shield KD, et al. Global alcohol exposure estimates by country. Addiction. 2020;115(5):817–23.

:11. Frone MR. Alcohol and the workplace: A review. J Subst Abuse. 2020;112:107–15.

:12. Ames GM, Bennett JB. Prevention interventions for alcohol problems in the workplace: A review. Alcohol Res. 2021;41(1):1–12.

:13. De Buen N. Labor law and proportionality. Rev Fac Derecho Mex. 2019;69(275):321–45.

:14. López J. Dignity in contemporary labor law. Ius Labor. 2020;1(1):55–70.

:15. International Labour Organization. Alcohol and drug problems at work: A practical manual. Geneva: ILO; 1996.

:16. Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones del Trabajo (Argentina). Jurisprudence on alcoholism. Buenos Aires; 2018.

:17. Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (Argentina). Ruling on dismissal and repeated drunkenness. Buenos Aires; 2019.

:18. Constitutional Court of Peru. Ruling on dismissal due to drunkenness. Lima; 2017.

:19. Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia (Costa Rica). Labor rulings on drunkenness. San José; 2018.

:20. Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social. Occupational health policies in Costa Rica. San José; 2020.

:21. Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (Mexico). Jurisprudence on drunkenness and labor termination. Mexico; 2015.

:22. Bambra C, et al. Workplace health interventions and inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76(5):455–62.