Employee Alcohol Testing in the Czech Republic
An employee may not drink alcohol at work or during working hours away from the workplace, for instance on a business trip, and may not enter the workplace under its influence either. An employer who fails to enforce this ban risks a fine of up to CZK 2,000,000 from the labour inspectorate, while an unsubstantiated instant dismissal over a borderline alcohol reading often loses in court. We explain how to handle workplace alcohol issues in a legally safe way.

Key takeaways
Legal Basis for Employee Alcohol Testing
At the same time, Section 102 of the Labour Code imposes an obligation on the employer to create a safe working environment and prevent risks. The combination of these provisions gives the employer a strong mandate to conduct checks.
The prohibition itself is strict: an employee may not consume alcoholic beverages at the workplace and during working hours, even outside these places (e.g., on a business trip), and may not enter the workplace under the influence of alcohol. A breach of this prohibition can lead to dismissal or even immediate termination of employment. If you are setting up internal procedures or dealing with a specific case of employment termination, support in the area of labour law may be useful.
The regulation is further specified by Act No. 65/2017 Coll., on Health Protection from the Harmful Effects of Addictive Substances. This Act defines indicative and expert examinations and establishes a legal fiction that refusing a test is considered a positive result with the legal consequences of intoxication.
Employer's Obligations in Law and in Practice
The employer has a statutory duty to ensure compliance with the alcohol ban in the workplace (Section 302 of the Labour Code). If this duty is neglected and the Labour Inspectorate finds that drinking is occurring at the workplace or that the employer is ignoring the risks, they face a fine of up to CZK 2,000,000 under the Labour Inspection Act. For small and medium-sized firms, such a penalty can be ruinous.
However, the employer must not abuse their authority. Testing must be based on occupational health and safety (OHS). If an employer were to test an employee every hour without reason, it would be considered harassment and an infringement of personal rights.
The lawyers at ARROWS law firm recommend establishing testing rules in an internal regulation that defines when and who can be checked. For a broader context (e.g., when an employer can test and what documents should be prepared), see also our article Alcohol in the Workplace: When Can an Employer Test Employees
When and How Employee Testing Can Be Conducted
The Labour Code states that an employee is obliged to undergo testing at the instruction of an authorised managing employee.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Preventive Checks
The most common reason is reasonable suspicion. This means the manager observes signs of intoxication: the smell of alcohol, unsteady gait, slurred speech, aggression, or an extraordinary event has occurred (an accident, a production error).
However, it is a myth that preventive testing is not possible. For positions requiring a high degree of safety, the employer can implement a system of random preventive checks. However, this must be regulated by an internal directive and must not be a tool for harassing inconvenient employees. If an employer tests only one specific employee without reason every day, a court could deem it an abuse of rights.
Ideally, every instruction to test should be supported by a record to prevent disputes. In practice, it is worthwhile to have document templates and incident resolution procedures ready, which fall under the area of contracts and negotiations.
Who is Authorised to Conduct Testing
A security guard or a colleague cannot conduct a test unless they are explicitly authorised to do so. The authorised persons are:
The statutory body (e.g., executive director, director).
A managing employee designated in writing by the employer.
This written authorisation is key. In practice, it is often missing, and if a foreman issues the instruction without written authorisation, the employee can refuse without penalty.
The list of authorised persons should be part of the internal regulations with which employees are familiarised. The ARROWS law firm prepares templates for these authorisations for clients to ensure they are legally sound.
Procedure for Conducting Testing
The correct procedure minimises the risk of losing in court:
Instruction: The authorised person instructs the employee to take a breathalyser test.
Information: The employee should be informed of the consequences of refusal (they will be considered to be under the influence).
Measurement: A breathalyser test is performed with a calibrated device (a specified measuring instrument). It is advisable to repeat the measurement after about 15 minutes to rule out errors and confirm the elimination/increase of alcohol.
Record: A record is made of the result.
Medical Examination: In the case of a positive breathalyser test result, it is strongly recommended to ask the employee to undergo an expert medical examination (blood test) to confirm the exact level.
Practical Aspects: Devices and Documentation
The result of a test is only as strong as the evidence supporting it.
Breathalyser Test versus Expert Medical Examination
A breathalyser test performed with a certified and calibrated device (a so-called specified measuring instrument) is recognised by courts as evidence if conducted correctly. Cheap 'petrol station breathalysers' without metrological verification have negligible weight. The employer must keep track of the device's calibration dates.
An expert medical examination (blood analysis by a toxicology laboratory) is the 'gold standard'. It eliminates debates about residual alcohol in the mouth, sensor errors, or physiological anomalies. If you are planning to give an employee immediate dismissal, a blood test gives you almost 100% certainty in a potential dispute.
Keeping a Record is a Must
Without paper, it didn't happen. The test record must contain:
Date and exact time (including the time of the repeat test).
Location of the check.
Identification of the employee and the person conducting the test.
Type and serial number of the device, date of last calibration.
Measured values.
Employee's signature (or a note of refusal to sign) and witnesses' signatures.
The presence of a witness (another employee) is crucial in case the person being tested refuses to cooperate or sign the record.
Potential Problems | How ARROWS Helps (consultation@arws.cz) |
Invalid evidence: Testing was performed by an unauthorised manager or with an uncalibrated device. | Process setup: We will prepare directives and authorisation templates so that every step of the check will stand up in court. |
Harassing checks: Blanket testing without rules, which a court would deem unlawful. | Review of OHS documentation: We will set up a system of checks that is legal and serves a preventive function. |
Missing record: The employee denies in court that they were tested. | Document templates: We will provide you with 'bulletproof' forms for recording a breathalyser test. |
Legal Consequences and Sanctions: What Are the Risks
As already mentioned, passivity does not pay off. If an employer tolerates alcohol, the Labour Inspectorate can impose a fine of up to CZK 2,000,000.
Penalties for the Employee
For an employee, a positive test can have fatal consequences, but they vary according to the intensity:
Less serious breach: At lower levels or in non-high-risk professions, it may be a less serious breach. The employer issues a warning letter. If the situation is repeated, it may be followed by dismissal for systematic less serious breaches of duty (Section 52(g) of the Labour Code) with a two-month notice period.
Serious breach: This can be grounds for dismissal with a two-month notice period even without prior warning.
Particularly gross breach: With high alcohol levels, endangerment of safety, or for drivers, it is possible to proceed with immediate termination of employment (Section 55 of the Labour Code). The employee is terminated 'on the spot' and without severance pay.
The Intensity is Decisive
The Supreme Court has ruled that not every 'per mille' reading is grounds for immediate dismissal. The employee's function (accountant vs. crane operator), their previous good record, the degree of risk to property and health, and the measured value must be assessed. Blanket dismissals for 0.3 per mille in office professions are often overturned by courts as disproportionately harsh.
Alcohol Levels and the Physiological Threshold
This is where the most mistakes are made. The device shows 0.25 ‰, and the employer dismisses the employee. This is a mistake.
Physiological Level and Measurement Error
The human body can show a low level of alcohol even without drinking (endogenous alcohol). Court practice and methodologies in the Czech Republic work with a so-called physiological level of about 0.2 g/kg (per mille).
Furthermore, every device has a measurement deviation, which is typically 0.04 ‰ for breath analysers.
A practical calculation for 2026: If a device measures 0.24 ‰, after subtracting the measurement deviation, we can get to a level of 0.20 ‰, which is considered a physiological level. In labour law practice, such a result must be considered negative.
A positive finding that proves alcohol consumption is only considered for values that, after subtracting the device's deviation, exceed the level of 0.2 ‰.
Safely provable intoxication for court purposes usually starts above a level of approx. 0.3 ‰ to 0.5 ‰ (depending on the context), with values up to 0.3 ‰ being potentially disputable. The lawyers at ARROWS point out that for immediate termination of employment, a higher level or direct endangerment of operations is usually necessary.
Special Situations and Exemptions
The ban does not apply absolutely everywhere. Exemptions under Section 106(4)(e) of the Labour Code:
Hot environments: Employees working in adverse microclimatic conditions (glassworks, foundries) may consume beer with a reduced alcohol content if it is prescribed by a doctor and stipulated in an internal regulation as a protective drink.
Tasters: Employees for whom alcohol consumption is part of their job duties (brewers, sommeliers). Here, however, the rule is that they must not be under the influence to the extent that they are unable to perform their work or endanger safety.
Business Trips
If an employee is driving a company car, it is considered work performance – zero tolerance applies. However, if they have dinner at a hotel after work on a business trip and have a beer, they are only breaching the ban if they are scheduled to work afterwards or are on call.
Conclusion
Alcohol in the workplace is a risk to safety and to the employer's wallet. The correct procedure requires a combination of quality documentation (internal regulations, authorisations), technical equipment (a calibrated tester), and legal sensitivity when choosing a sanction. A hasty 'immediate termination' for disputable alcohol levels often ends in a loss in court.
If you are dealing with a suspicion of alcohol or are preparing to terminate an employment relationship for this reason, don't take risks. The lawyers at ARROWS law firm will help you assess the situation, set up processes, and represent you in any dispute. Contact us at consultation@arws.cz.
About the author
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only and serves as a basic guide to the issue as of 2026. Although we strive for maximum accuracy, laws and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS Law Firm, a member of the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for the maximum security of our clients, we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 350,000,000. To verify the current wording of the regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS Law Firm directly (consultation@arws.cz). We are not liable for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.
