‘Not Automatically Intoxicated’: Court Orders City to Reinstate Cop Fired Over Positive Weed Test

A Cape Town law enforcement officer dismissed for testing positive for cannabis will return to work with more than R553,000 in back pay, after the Labour Court dismissed the City’s bid to overturn an arbitration award in his favour.

The case, which has significant implications for zero-tolerance drug policies in high-risk positions, turned on a crucial distinction: a positive test for cannabis does not, on its own, prove impairment.

The Dismissal

Keegan Mantis, a learner law enforcement officer employed by the City of Cape Town, tested positive for cannabis during a random workplace drug test in February 2023. His position was classified as high riskofficers may be required to carry firearms, drive official vehicles, and respond to emergencies.

The City’s Substance Abuse System and Procedure enforces a zero-tolerance approach toward employees who test positive for drugs or alcohol while on duty. Following a disciplinary hearing, Mantis was dismissed on 31 October 2023.

He challenged the dismissal through arbitration at the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC), represented by the South African Municipal Workers’ Union (SAMWU).

The Arbitration Finding

At arbitration, Mantis pleaded guilty to failing the drug test. The central issue was whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a first offence.

The arbitrator found that while the City had adopted a zero-tolerance policy, such a policy could not override legal principles requiring proportionality. Relying on a prior Labour Appeal Court decision, the arbitrator held that a positive cannabis test does not automatically prove intoxication or impairment.

Crucially, the City led no evidence showing that Mantis was intoxicated or unable to perform his duties on the day of the test. It was also common cause that he was not required to carry a firearm, drive a vehicle, or perform hazardous tasks at the time.

The arbitrator concluded that dismissal for a first offence was too harsh and ordered Mantis’s reinstatement in September 2024, along with back pay of more than R197,000.

The City’s Challenge

Disappointed with the outcome, the City approached the Labour Court, arguing that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity and ignored material evidence. The City contended that the offence was dismissible even as a first offence, given the high-risk nature of law enforcement work.

The Court’s Ruling

The Labour Court, however, drew a sharp distinction between an appeal and a review. Acting Judge May reiterated that an arbitration award can only be set aside if both the reasoning and the outcome are unreasonable.

The judge noted that arbitrators must consider the totality of the circumstances when assessing sanction, including the seriousness of the rule breached, the harm caused, and whether dismissal is a measure of last resort.

The court found that the arbitrator properly considered the evidence, understood the nature of the dispute, and applied the relevant legal principles.

Although the judge remarked that the arbitrator “may have incorrectly found that the risk was no longer high,” this did not amount to a reviewable defect.

“There was no material malfunctioning,” the court held, concluding that the award was “unassailable.”

The Financial Fallout

Because the review proceedings delayed Mantis’s return to work, the court ordered that he report for duty on 2 March 2026. The City was further directed to pay him full back pay for the period from October 2023 to March 2026amounting to more than R553,000 by 31 March 2026.

The Broader Implications

The ruling sends a clear message to employers with zero-tolerance policies: a positive drug test, standing alone, is not enough to justify dismissal. Employers must prove impairmentor at least that the employee was in a position where safety risks were real and present.

For the City of Cape Town, the case is a costly lesson in the limits of zero tolerance. For Mantis, it is a return to work and a significant financial settlement. And for the broader debate over cannabis in the workplace, it is another precedent confirming that testing positive is not the same as being unfit for duty.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com