The actual drug use also constituted misconduct that interferes with employment because Hein operated heavy machinery that posed a danger to others if he were under the influence of drugs. Such conclusion does not end our inquiry, however. Because Hein was discharged due to his drug addiction, he is not disqualified from receiving benefits if he made reasonable efforts to retain employment. The Commissioner's representative concluded that Hein did not make reasonable efforts because he did not disclose to his counselor or to the members of his aftercare group that he had taken an illegal drug and had suffered a relapse. This finding by the Commissioner ignores the nature of the disease of alcoholism and is predicated on the belief that once an alcoholic begins treatment he is able to control his actions.
Alcoholism is a chronic illness characterized by remissions and exacerbations.
The statute only requires that the employee make a reasonable effort to retain his employment. Given the nature of the disease, it is unreasonable to require the employee to maintain total abstinence even after he enters treatment. The supreme court held that the employee, who had voluntarily undergone treatment in attempting to control his addiction and who had been very concerned about retaining his job, had made reasonable efforts as required by the statute. The court stated that the chemical dependency provision in the serious illness exception, which requires consistent efforts to maintain necessary treatment, was added in response to, and codifies the import of, Moeller . That is, one suffering from a chemical dependency need not maintain total abstinence from chemicals or achieve total success in treatment to make reasonable efforts to retain his employment.