A Costly Assumption: Labour Court Rules Against Company That Fired Worker for Being ‘Drunk’

In a ruling that underscores the critical importance of hard evidence in workplace discipline, the Labour Court has handed a victory to a worker who was dismissed for allegedly being drunk on the job. The case highlights a fundamental principle for employers: an accusation, no matter how strongly held, is not enough to justify a dismissal. You must have the proof to back it up.

The court found that the company, Unilec SA, failed to prove its case, ultimately delivering a judgment that reinforces the standards of fairness in South African labour law.

A Sick Day, Not a Drinking Day

The story began when Ntsabi Mahlo, a general worker, reported feeling unwell on September 19, 2022. He consulted the company’s in-house doctor, who examined him, found him to be sick, and formally booked him off work. For further validation, a second doctor saw him the following day and also provided a sick note, confirming his illness.

The situation took a drastic turn when company management later alleged that on that same Monday, Mahlo had actually reported for duty under the influence of alcohol. The company held a disciplinary hearing, found him guilty, and dismissed him immediately.

The Critical Lack of Evidence

Unwilling to accept this, Mahlo took his case to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The CCMA commissioner ruled in his favour, finding the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The company, dissatisfied, then took the rare step of appealing to the Labour Court.

In the Labour Court, Acting Judge Pango pinpointed the fatal flaw in the employer’s case: a complete lack of tangible evidence. The company had no blood tests, no breathalyser results, and no independent toxicology reports to prove Mahlo was intoxicated.

The judge noted that the only medical evidence available actually worked in the employee’s favour. Two different doctors who had examined him on the days in question did not note any signs of alcohol consumption; they diagnosed him as ill.

A Door Slammed on New Evidence

In a final attempt to win the case, the company’s legal representative tried to submit new documentary evidence during the Labour Court review. Judge Pango firmly refused to accept it.

The judge stated that it was improper to try and introduce evidence through the “back door” that was never presented to the original CCMA commissioner. A review is not a retrial; its purpose is to assess whether the commissioner’s decision was reasonable based on the evidence they had at the time.

The company’s application was dismissed. Not only did they lose the case, but they were also ordered to pay Mahlo’s legal costs, making an already costly assumption even more expensive. The ruling stands as a clear warning to employers: when making a serious allegation like intoxication, you must come to the hearing armed with scientific proof, not just suspicion.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com