A general worker, who was dismissed for allegedly being drunk at work while actually visiting the company doctor for illness, has won at the Labour Court after his employer failed to provide any evidence to support the serious allegations.

Evans Mahlo, who worked for electrical company Unilec SA since December 2021, was fired in September 2022 after being accused of being under the influence of alcohol during working hours. This is despite two medical doctors confirming he was genuinely sick and booked him off work until September 21, 2022.

Mahlo visited his workplace on September 19, 2022, not to work, but to consult the in-house doctor because he felt unwell. During this medical visit, his supervisor, Mr Dlamini, confronted him about his absence from work. 

However, instead of accepting the medical evidence, Unilec SA charged him with being under the influence of an intoxicating substance, found him guilty in a disciplinary hearing, and fired him on the spot.

Mahlo fought back, challenging his dismissal at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, where Commissioner Lungile Matshaka ruled that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. The company then took the matter to the Labour Court, seeking to overturn the arbitration award.

While delivering a ruling, Judge Pango criticised the conduct, saying that the attempt to introduce new evidence to the court review that had never been presented during the original arbitration proceedings was improper and inadmissible.

“The applicant (Unilec SA) failed to prove its case. It cannot now, through the back door, seek to rely on evidence that was never placed before the commissioner,” Pango declared.

Additionally, the court heard that throughout the entire disciplinary process and arbitration, Unilec SA provided no blood tests, breathalyser results, or any other concrete evidence to support their claims that Mahlo was intoxicated. Instead, they relied solely on subjective observations that contradicted the medical evidence.

“Considering that the first respondent (Mahlo) was charged with being under the influence of alcohol, the employer did not support this with sufficient evidence,” the judge emphasised.

Acting Judge Pango upheld the commissioner’s ruling, finding that the arbitration decision was reasonable and based on available evidence.

“The commissioner should base its decision on material before him, which is what was done in this matter,” the acting judge ruled.

The Labour Court dismissed Unilec SA’s review application and ordered the company to pay Mahlo’s legal costs. 

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za

Source link