Ask Kate: How do you support a struggling employee without risking the safety of others?

Every month, Kate Teves, HR consultant, recruiter and founder of The HR Pro, answers industry questions about anything and everything related to human resources. Have a question for Kate? Send her an email.

There are some workplace conversations no business owner wants to have:

“What is going on? Are you okay? We are concerned about you.”

And sometimes, the most difficult question: “Are you safe to be doing this job right now?”

Substance use is one of those issues.

Whether the concern involves alcohol, recreational drugs, prescription medication or substance dependency, employers and business owners can find themselves balancing two important responsibilities: supporting someone who may need help while protecting employees, clients and the public from potential harm.

The answer is not to ignore the problem because it is uncomfortable. Nor is it to immediately terminate someone because there is a suspicion they may have an addiction.

The answer is to address the issue.

Start with the behaviour, not the diagnosis

One of the biggest mistakes an employer can make is approaching an employee by saying, “We think you have a drug or alcohol problem.”

Unless the individual has disclosed a condition, that is generally not the employer’s determination to make.

Instead, focus on what you can observe.

Has there been a pattern of unexplained absences, significant performance changes, erratic behaviour, unusual errors or concerns raised by colleagues? Has the individual appeared impaired at work? Are there concerns about driving, interacting with clients or performing safety-sensitive duties?

These are workplace facts. They can be addressed without attempting to diagnose the individual.

This distinction is important because addiction and substance dependency can constitute a disability protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Employers may therefore have a duty to accommodate disability-related needs to the point of undue hardship.

You can address the behaviour without making the diagnosis.

Accommodation does not mean ignoring risk

Accommodation is not a free pass.

Employers have a duty to accommodate, but health and safety are also legitimate considerations. The question becomes whether the individual can safely perform the essential requirements of their position, with appropriate accommodation.

This is particularly relevant in real estate.

A real estate professional may drive clients, conduct showings alone, meet strangers in vacant properties, access private homes, handle sensitive information or work independently with little direct supervision.

If someone is impaired while performing those duties, they could potentially put themselves, their colleagues or the public at risk.

That does not automatically mean the person should lose their job or registration.

It does mean the brokerage or business owner cannot simply look the other way.

A real-life example

Recently, I worked with a client who had become increasingly concerned about a high-level employee.

The individual was experienced, highly valued and an important contributor to the business. However, the employer had begun seeing a pattern of behaviour that raised serious concerns about possible substance use.

The employer could have ignored it, waited for a more obvious incident or immediately terminated the employee.  Instead, we took a different approach.

The conversation was direct but compassionate. The employer explained what they had observed and why they were concerned, without attempting to diagnose the individual or demand unnecessary medical information.

The employee was placed on a leave of absence. The purpose was not punishment. It created an opportunity for the individual to step away from the workplace, seek professional support and address the situation without potentially putting themselves or others at risk.

The employer also offered financial assistance toward treatment and rehabilitation.

Sometimes the most responsible business decision is to create an opportunity for someone to get help before the situation becomes a crisis.

Support does not remove accountability

Supporting someone does not mean eliminating expectations.

Depending on the circumstances, a return-to-work plan might include modified duties, temporary removal of driving or other safety-sensitive responsibilities, a gradual return to work or other appropriate measures.

The employee can still be expected to meet legitimate performance, conduct and safety requirements once appropriate accommodation is in place.

Employers should also be careful about requesting unnecessary medical information. Generally, the focus should be on restrictions, functional abilities and accommodation needs—not someone’s entire medical history.

What about agents and independent contractors?

This is where the relationship becomes particularly important.

An employee and an independent contractor are not automatically treated the same way simply because both work within a real estate business.

Calling someone an “independent contractor” also does not mean a brokerage can ignore its regulatory or safety responsibilities.

For Ontario brokerages, there may be additional obligations under TRESA and the applicable regulatory framework. Depending on the circumstances, there may also be reporting obligations involving a regulator, law enforcement or another governing body.

The important point is: do not assume, and do not ignore.

If there is a legitimate safety, misconduct or regulatory concern, obtain appropriate legal or regulatory advice and address it.

When is it time to say enough is enough?

What happens when you have offered support, accommodated the individual, provided opportunities for treatment and established clear expectations—but the same problem continues?

Accommodation is not an unlimited obligation to preserve a particular position regardless of the circumstances.

If an individual cannot perform the essential duties of the role, even with appropriate accommodation, or a significant safety risk remains that cannot reasonably be addressed, the analysis changes.

There may also be circumstances where the issue is not the addiction itself, but misconduct arising from the individual’s conduct—such as dishonesty, theft, violence, serious confidentiality breaches or repeated unsafe behaviour.

The question should not be: “Does this person have an addiction?”

It should be: “Can this individual safely and successfully perform the essential requirements of this role, with appropriate accommodation?”

If the answer is ultimately no, termination of employment or ending a contractual relationship may become appropriate. However, that decision should be based on the applicable legal and contractual framework, documented facts, the accommodation process and the specific safety and performance concerns.

Kindness and boundaries can exist together

Business owners do not have to choose between compassion and responsibility.

You can say: “We care about you but we cannot allow you to continue working while there is a legitimate safety concern.  We want to help you access treatment.  You will still be expected to meet the requirements of your role when you return.”

Those statements are not contradictory.

Real estate is a people business, and our responsibility extends beyond the individual sitting across from us. It includes the colleague getting into a vehicle with them, the client meeting them at a property, the family allowing them into their home and the public sharing the road with them.

Sometimes the kindest thing a business can do is help someone step away, get help and return safely.

And sometimes, despite everyone’s best efforts, the safest and most responsible decision is to end the relationship.

Compassion should always be part of the conversation. But compassion cannot require us to compromise safety.

The post Ask Kate: How do you support a struggling employee without risking the safety of others? appeared first on REM.