More than 14m working days are apparently lost to hangovers, absenteeism or alcohol related illnesses each year, but instant tests should perhaps be used cautiously

Routine alcohol testing at work could be on the way with the introduction of a fingerprint device that gives results in eight seconds. The AlcoSense device is described as "a 100% non-invasive, touch based measurement" which uses near infra-red to measure alcohol intoxication "without breath or body fluids". The company actively promotes the use of the device for "testing in the workplace every day" and it has been reported this is already commonplace in many US workplaces.

With previous surveys suggesting more than 14m working days are lost to hangovers, absenteeism or alcohol related illnesses each year, one can reasonably expect that employers' interests could be served by this, especially in the NHS, security, local government and transport industries, which it appears are likely to be targeted for the new equipment.

In some industries, such as rail and maritime, drug and alcohol testing is already mandatory and necessary as a regulatory requirement. For the majority, however, there is no right to mandatory alcohol testing. What will strengthen an employer's position, however, is whether there is a full contractual health and safety policy in place governing drugs and alcohol abuse which provides for testing in certain circumstances – and which may include random testing. Such a policy would usually be set out in your contract of employment or staff handbook and should also clearly explain any possible disciplinary sanctions if you fail the test.

The grounds which an employer would rely on for testing someone includes a reduced work performance, damaged client relations, absenteeism and an impact on the wider workplace such as having to deal with staff cover. If you unreasonably refuse a test when your employer has good grounds for testing you, it could lead to your dismissal and hamper your chances of successfully bringing a claim. An employment tribunal would then consider whether the action taken against you by your employer for refusing to take a test falls within the reasonable range of responses.

As the law stands it is likely that an employment tribunal would rule that a dismissal was fair and justified if there was clear evidence that drug or alcohol use affected your performance at work, particularly if there were health and safety considerations. Conversely, however, a tribunal is unlikely to find that there has been a fair dismissal simply on the basis of some "casual link" or vague claim by an employer about how alcohol abuse is affecting its reputation.

While employers will see alcohol testing as being beneficial for reasons that include safety considerations, productivity at work, and an employee's own welfare, arguments against include the invasion of a worker's privacy. One common argument against workplace alcohol testing is Article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which enshrines the right to "respect for private and family life" – but this is a qualified right, not absolute.

Employers are already under a duty to provide a safe working environment under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This duty includes ensuring that no staff are allowed to work when impaired by the use of illegal drugs or alcohol.

But the introduction of this speedy gadget to determine whether or not you are under the influence at work takes matters to a new level. In order to protect themselves, most employers should make sure that any testing complies with the highest standards and processes, following industry best practice and using a fully accredited, professional and independent service provider. It remains to be seen how many will be tempted to frequently test their staff with little or no notice. It is not too difficult to see what that might do to staff morale if the practice becomes widespread.

• Philip Landau is an employment lawyer at Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors