I'm not sure what his contract says. He will need to find his contract tomorrow at his old house. The safety video they watch just before boarding says not to drink a day before. He did wrong by his own admission by drinking at all, but he should have been clear after one gin and tonic before his evening meal, and two glasses of wine with his evening meal. He was in bed asleep before midnight. He has sandwiches and a bottle of water for breakfast and had to check in at 7.30am on Thursday gone. We do not believe the breath test was correct. The disciplinary letter said about being too drunk to work, which was not the case, not being zero tested for alcohol which makes me think his contract must not be zero alcohol. ... is tomorrow too late to continue this discussion once we have the contract?
He was with a group that he is on shift with. They all ate together so would all have to admit they had a drink the night before going offshore. They work for BP though where my partner is subcontracted to them. I will message tomorrow with the wording of the contract. Will it be easy to rejoin this chain of discussion?
We can only find the letter appointing him to the rig, not an actual contract. None of the paperwork or amendments he has mention alcohol at all.
He has asked me to tell you that he blew into the same breathalyser twice as the first reading said it was negative due to insufficient flow.
None of the colleagues present at the meal can attend as they are all offshore. They do agree though that something is very wrong and will be sending emails of support and evidence to be used at the hearing on tuesday. He will be supported by the onshore chemist who works for another company and has known him for years.
Is this then the way he should present himself? That he has nearly 20 years service with NO blemish on his history, that he disputes the test result and that he wasn't allowed to prove himself by a blood test. That he has witnesses to what he drank and that the test cannot be correct.
Do you feel that this should be enough to cast doubt on the test and save his job? The other issue is that he wouldn't have been on the chopper or the rig for hours after the test anyway.