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, Edaurdo Antonio<sup>2</sup>==

==Affiliations:==

<sup>1</sup>Medical Intern (Social Service), 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====

Drunkenness as grounds for termination of the employment relationship without employer liability has been widely debated in Latin America. Although contemplated in the labor laws of Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico, recent case law questions its strict application. From a medical perspective, alcoholism is recognized as a chronic, progressive disease, creating tension between workers' right to health and employers' authority to terminate contracts<sub>[1–3].</sub> This article provides a medical-legal comparative analysis of legal and health criteria regarding workplace drunkenness. The study highlights the principle of proportionality, recognition of alcoholism as a disease, and the need to align labor regulations with occupational health<sub>[4–6]. </sub>We conclude that mere drunkenness should not suffice to justify dismissal, except when workplace safety, productivity, or third-party integrity is compromised, emphasizing preventive and rehabilitative measures<sub>[7,8].</sub>

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

====Introduction====

Alcohol consumption and its repercussions in the workplace constitute both a public health and a labor law problem<sub>[1,2].</sub> The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies alcoholism as a dependency syndrome with physical, psychological, and social impact<sub>[1]. </sub>In the occupational context, drunkenness has traditionally been considered grounds for termination without employer liability, creating tension between the protection of workers’ rights and the need to ensure productivity and safety<sub>[4,5]. </sub>This article analyzes the application of drunkenness as a cause for dismissal in Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, and Mexico, from an interdisciplinary perspective linking medicine with labor law<sub>[6].</sub>

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

'''Legal Conceptual Framework'''<br/>Latin American labor law recognizes the figure of termination of the employment relationship for just cause<sub>[4–7].</sub> 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<sub>[13,14].</sub> 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<sub>[15].</sub>

Methodology<br/>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<sub>[3,6,9].</sub> Academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science), WHO and ILO documents, as well as relevant national jurisprudence, were consulted<sub>[5,13].</sub>

Comparative Results

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

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

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

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

Medical–Legal Discussion<br/>From a medical perspective, alcoholism is a chronic disease with social repercussions, requiring rehabilitation rather than immediate sanctions<sub>[1,2,10]. </sub>Dismissal can exacerbate the problem and increase social costs<sub>[12]. </sub>From a legal perspective, although drunkenness remains a cause for termination, jurisprudence has nuanced its application under the principle of proportionality <sub>[13,14].</sub> The interdisciplinary approach reveals a persistent tension between job stability, health, and workplace safety<sub>[15].</sub> The ILO recommends addressing alcohol consumption as a health issue, prioritizing rehabilitation over sanction<sub>[15].</sub> Additionally, employer training in the identification of alcoholism and the implementation of support programs are required<sub>[22].</sub>

==Conclusions==

:1. Drunkenness as grounds for termination remains present in labor legislation, but its strict application has been limited by jurisprudence<sub>[4–7,13–21].</sub>

:2. Alcoholism must be understood as a disease, which compels the implementation of support and rehabilitation alternatives<sub>[1–3,9,12].</sub>

:3. The principle of proportionality requires assessment of severity, recurrence, and prior records before applying dismissal<sub>[13,14,17–19].</sub>

:4. The medical–legal interdisciplinary approach balances health protection and occupational safety<sub>[15].</sub>

:5. Future reforms should integrate occupational health and human rights standards<sub>[15,20].</sub>

:6. Prevention and rehabilitation programs are more effective than dismissal in reducing accidents and protecting fundamental rights<sub>[12,22].</sub>

==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.