At manufacturing, construction, and transport sites, the result of an alcohol check before arriving for work or starting a task can determine assignments such as vehicle operation, heavy equipment operation, work at height, and equipment work. Safety and health, HR, and site managers tend to focus on whether the reading exceeded the internal threshold. However, when a result is near the threshold, a test fails, or someone asks for the result to be confirmed, the number alone cannot decide what happens next.
A company's alcohol test criteria are not a single number but rules that connect test results to work assignment decisions. You need to decide which test method and display unit to use, what counts as a test that ended normally, who decides when a re-check is needed, and which tasks will not be assigned in the meantime. If one site puts a worker on the job and another keeps the worker waiting after seeing the same screen, the operating standard is not unified, even if there is a threshold number.
Agree on what results mean before agreeing on numbers
Even the same number cannot be compared on the same basis if the display unit or test method differs. If one site records quantitative readings and another records only a pass or warning indication, you need to check what each indication means before combining the records. If you arbitrarily record a screening result from a detection-type device as if it were a quantitative reading, the meaning of the criteria becomes blurred.
It is best for the operating document to state, along with the internal threshold, the display unit on the device screen, the test method applied, and the conditions for a valid result. The absence of a warning beep or a specific indication does not automatically approve someone for work. You need to distinguish whether the test ended normally, whether additional confirmation is under way, and whether the work assignment decision has not yet been made.
Link result states to on-site actions
If you only list numeric ranges, it is easy to treat all results below the threshold as the same state. But even if a reading is below the threshold, a test that did not complete validly needs to be distinguished from a normally completed result. Even when a result exceeds the threshold, the person in charge on site should follow the set reporting and assignment procedure rather than making a personal judgment on the spot.
| Situation when reading the result | What to record | Next action on site |
|---|---|---|
| Validly completed result | Test method, display unit, result status | Decide on work assignment according to internal criteria |
| Result near the threshold or needing further confirmation | Reason for confirmation, whether a re-check is under way | Hold assignment to the relevant task until the final decision |
| Test not finished or an error occurred | Specific indication of non-completion or error | Apply the set alternative procedure, kept separate from normal results |
| A worker requests confirmation of the result | Time of request, person responsible for confirmation | Pass it to the person with decision authority to decide according to the criteria |
A hold on work assignment here is not simply making someone wait. At a transport site, it means not confirming dispatch. At manufacturing and construction sites, it means carrying out the confirmation procedure without putting the worker on driving, operating, or a work position. The site can only carry this out if the tasks on hold, whether replacement staff can be assigned, and who makes the final assignment decision are defined together.
Handle results near the threshold through a confirmation procedure
Consider a hypothetical example. A night-shift worker finished the test, and the screen showed a result that appears to be near the internal threshold. What the site manager has observed at this point is only that "an indication near the threshold appeared." Rather than jumping to a conclusion about whether the worker drank the day before or can perform the work, it is right to interpret this as a state that needs the set confirmation procedure before final assignment.
One possible action is to carry out a re-check in the pre-defined way and hold the assignment decision for that task until the result is confirmed. Recording the first result, the reason for the re-check, the test method applied, and the person who made the final assignment decision allows comparison with similar cases later. The completion standard is not getting a particular number again. It is complete when a valid result has been obtained by the method set out in the internal criteria, and the assignment decision based on that result matches the records.
Cases where the test was not completed or an error was shown also do not need to be recorded as meaning the same thing as exceeding the threshold. A case where an actual result came out and a case where no valid result was obtained may have different causes. Keeping separate records and follow-up procedures for these two states reduces the chance of treating an error as a normal pass, or treating a state with no result as if it were an arbitrary numeric result.
Check document criteria and screen settings together
If you change the internal criteria but the display unit, usage method, and result sheet items on the device remain as before, a standard different from the document may be applied on site. When you change the criteria, you need a way to check, as one package, not just the approved document but also what the device actually displays and whether the result recording form captures that indication. If you operate at several sites, whether each site's screens and records mean the same thing is also something to check.
Finding a mismatch does not mean you should revise past records all at once. After securing the time of discovery, the display unit and usage conditions on the actual screen, and the internal document applied at the time, assign someone responsible for confirming since when and at which site the difference existed. You can separately define how assignment decisions at that site will be made during the confirmation period, so the site does not fill the gap with arbitrary judgment.
When you check settings with the device manufacturer, you can consider passing on the device model, the current display unit, the test method in use, and the parts of your internal rules that need confirmation. The manufacturer can help confirm which settings the device supports and what its indications mean. However, guidance on device settings must be kept separate from work assignments or HR actions for workers. The latter is for the business to decide based on its own criteria and work risks.
Check that the same case leads to the same action
After creating the criteria table, you can run through hypothetical cases: a normally completed result, a case where no valid result was obtained, and a case where a worker asks for the result to be confirmed. If you have supervisors and test staff write down, for each case, what to record, who decides on assignment, and the next action, gaps in the criteria will show up. If one person treats the same indication as complete and another leaves it on hold, what needs fixing is not how high or low the number is, but the definitions of result states and authority.
Article 36 of Korea's Occupational Safety and Health Act sets out risk assessment, in which hazards and risk factors, including work behavior, are identified, risk is judged, and improvement measures to reduce danger or health impairment are set up and carried out. If you link alcohol checks to the workplace's safety management procedures, it is best for the criteria table to show which results lead to different assignment and confirmation procedures in order to reduce which work risks. When the number, the validity of the result, follow-up action, decision authority, and recorded items connect in one flow, you have company alcohol test criteria that do not depend on a single number.
