Labour Court rules in favour of man dismissed for being drunk at work
A man who was accused of being drunk at work has won the legal battle against his employer.
Ntsabi Mahlo has been working as a general worker at Unilec SA since December 2021.
On September 19, 2022, Mahlo went to work to consult with an in-house doctor as he was not feeling well. After the examination, it was found that he was sick and the doctor booked him off from work.
A second opinion from another doctor the next day confirmed his illness, resulting in further sick leave for September 21, 2022.
However, the tide turned when management alleged that Mahlo had reported for duty under the influence of alcohol on Monday, September 19, 2022. A disciplinary hearing was held, and he was found guilty of the charge and was dismissed immediately.
Unwilling to accept this outcome, Mahlo referred the matter to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), contesting the procedural and substantive fairness of his dismissal.
The CCMA ultimately found that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair.
Unilec SA, dissatisfied with this determination, escalated the dispute to the Labour Court in Johannesburg, asserting that the Commissioner had overlooked critical evidence and his findings were not those of a reasonable decision maker.
The employer held that Mahlo was under the influence of alcohol during working hours and the Commissioner ought to have found as such. Furthermore, it was said the Commissioner was unreasonable in relying on the fact that none of the medical doctors detected that Mahlo was under the influence of alcohol.
The company insisted that the Commissioner should have found that Mahlo was under the influence as there was direct evidence supporting their argument.
During the review process, acting judge Pango presided over the matter and noted that the Commissioner’s findings were supported by the fact that when Mahlo went to the doctors on different days, the doctors did not detect any alcohol; instead, they confirmed that he was ill.
Considering the company’s arguments, Judge Pango said the employer did not support its position with sufficient evidence and there were no blood tests submitted to prove that Mahlo was under the influence of alcohol.
“The only evidence presented was an invoice which reflected the nature of tests that were taken. This was not proof that the first respondent (Mahlo) was under the influence of an intoxicating substance,” said the judge.
The judge noted that during the hearing, the employer’s legal representative tried to submit new documentary evidence. The court refused to accept the documents as they were not presented during the CCMA hearing.
“It is not in dispute that such evidence was never presented in the arbitration proceedings, and I am not sure what purpose it will serve at this point to furnish this court with evidence that was never placed before the Commissioner,” said the judge.
The judge held that the company failed to prove its case.
‘It cannot now, through the back door, seek to rely on evidence that was never placed before the Commissioner. A Commissioner should base its decision on material before him, which is what was done in this matter.”
The application was dismissed, and the company was further ordered to pay Mahlo’s legal costs.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News