Constitutional Court: Teachers who refused to take the breath test could be fired immediately

How the case came about

The whole dispute started in 2015 at a high school in Prostejov. Two teachers were caught in the teacher’s office after failing to attend classes. There were bottles of alcohol in the room and both teachers refused to take a breathalyzer test. One of them later admitted that he had indeed consumed alcohol. The school responded forcefully by dismissing both teachers with immediate termination of employment.

But the general courts sided with the teachers. They said the sanction was too harsh because there was no clear evidence of alcohol consumption directly during working hours. The verdicts therefore declared the dismissal invalid.

The Constitutional Court ruled otherwise

However, the Constitutional Court looked at the case from a different perspective. It stressed that teachers have a special status – they are not only employees but also role models for pupils. If teachers refused to take a breath test and the circumstances indicated that they may have consumed alcohol, they undermined the trust that their profession requires.

The Court criticised the general courts for formalism. In its view, they had relied too heavily on evidence of actual blood alcohol levels, but had failed to take into account the context and specifics of the teaching profession. A teacher should set an example and any suspicion of alcohol in the workplace is very serious.

The result? The Constitutional Court ruled that the immediate firing was justified and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration.

What this means for employees and employers

The decision has broader implications than just education. It is important for all professions that involve a high level of public trust, such as doctors, nurses, police officers and drivers.

• Employers have greater confidence that they can resort to summary dismissal in serious cases. But they must document the situation well and explain why the employee’s actions were so serious.
• Employees must be aware that refusal to cooperate in clarifying suspicious circumstances (for example, a breath test) may be interpreted against them. In a situation like this, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer.
• The courts must take into account not only the legal formalities but also the ethical and social dimension of the profession.

How to defend against summary dismissal

Immediate termination of employment is an exceptional step that is only used when the employee’s conduct is truly contrary to his or her fundamental duties. If you disagree with such a step, you can defend yourself in court. The court will assess whether the sanction was reasonable and whether the employer acted arbitrarily.

Employees should gather evidence to justify their actions as soon as possible – for example, medical reports, witness statements or other documents. Conversely, the employer must show that immediate termination was necessary and could not wait for the normal notice period.