Discipline and Dismissal

Mixed verdicts on alcohol-related industrial cases

Ivan Israelstam

An employer recently remarked to me that the time is fast approaching when an employee will have to kill somebody before his/her conduct can be construed as sufficient to merit dismissal. While this is an exaggeration, the Rustenburg Platinum finding and the Shoprite Checkers finding that were discussed in recent articles show that arbitrators and judges are ready to overturn dismissals of employees who have committed serious offences.

This leaves employers at a loss as to when offending employees may or may not be dismissed. One view that appears to be emerging is that the seriousness of the employee's offence must no longer be measured by the potential effect of the misconduct, but rather by the actual effect thereof. In the case of Numsa obo Davids vs Bosal Africa (Pty) Ltd (1999 10 BALR 1240) the employee was dismissed for being under the influence of alcohol at work.

The facts proved that there were no actual consequences of the employee working while under the influence of alcohol. That is, the employee had been operating a crane for three hours before his condition was discovered.He had been doing his work efficiently for all that time and had caused no damage of any kind. The trade union therefore argued that the alcohol in the employee's system was not sufficient to intoxicate him and was not sufficient to impair his ability to work.

However, the arbitrator found the dismissal to be fair because of the danger that the employee's condition posed of injury to others and damage to the employer's reputation. In the case of Numsa obo Motsele vs Haggie Wire and Strand (2006, 2 BALR 163) the employee again argued that, while he had been drinking alcohol he was not drunk and his ability to work was not impaired. Nevertheless, he was dismissed because his alcohol test showed that he was intoxicated.

The arbitrator upheld this decision after finding that::

  • There was sufficient evidence to show that the employee was intoxicated.
  • The employee denied that his condition had impaired his ability to work and that this denial counted against him!
  • The employee was aware of the potential consequences of his actions.
  • The employer is entitled to set standards of conduct which arbitrators should not lightly interfere with.


The arbitrator found that the employee's conduct rendered continuation of the employment relationship intolerable.The above cases showed that the employer was entitled to set its own standards for employee conduct and to dismiss employees for conduct that might be seen as potentially dangerous even if there had not been any actual damage done. However, in the case of Astore Africa (Pty) Ltd vs CCMA and others (2008, BLLR ), a very different approach was taken.


A key reason for this appears to be the fact that the alcohol tests done in the above two cases showed how much alcohol was in the employee's system while the test applied in the Astore case only showed the presence of alcohol. In this case the employee had not caused any damage to property while driving the company vehicle. However, his speech had been slurred and he had been tested for alcohol consumption by a client where he was supposed to have been delivering goods.

Despite this, both the CCMA and the Labour Court (on review) found that the slurred speech might not have been due to the employee's consumption of alcohol.They found that there was insufficient proof that the amount of alcohol in the employee's system impaired his ability to do his work. On this basis they found that the dismissal was unfair. In labour law employers are not required to prove their charges against employees beyond reasonable doubt.

They are only required to prove their allegations on balance of probability. In this case it is clear that:

  • The employee did indeed have alcohol in his system; the alcohol test result was not disputed.
  • The employee's condition was so apparent that the employer's client tested him.
  • He had alcohol on his breath and his speech was slurred.


The arbitrator acknowledged that slurred speech can be an indication of the person being under the influence of alcohol. However, he added that this will not always be the case, as slurred speech can also result from tiredness. However, applying the facts of the positive alcohol test result, the red eyes and alcohol breath, it is clear, in terms of the principles of balance of probabilities, that the slurred speech showed that the employee was intoxicated.


The Astore decision is yet another in a growing line of decisions that could drive employers to drink. However, a less dangerous and more effective remedy would be to utilise labour law expertise as soon as alcohol-related cases arise.

  • Ivan Israelstam, chief executive of Labour Law Management Consulting. He can be contacted on  011-888-7944  or
  • Our appreciation to Ivan and The Star newspaper for permission to publish this article…

Case Law Summaries and Articles


Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>


Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>


Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>


Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>







Courses and Workshops




Shop Steward Training

28 August 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Employment Equity Committee Training

29 August 2019 (Fully Booked)

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

30 August 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

27 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

04 October 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani: Durban

Basic Labour Relations

04 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Course

12 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

13 September 2019

Southern Sun: Maharani Towers: Durban

19 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

28 November 2019

Protea Hotel By Marriott Tyger Valley: Cape Town

Managing Day to Day Issues/ Problem Employees Full day workshop

20 September 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

27 September 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Cape Town

AARTO and the Impact on Your Business

03 October 2019

Emperors Palace Convention Centre

Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Course

18 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

21 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town

Workshop Incident/Accident Investigation Course

25 October 2019

Emperors Palace: Convention Centre

22 November 2019

Tsogo Sun: Century City: Stay Easy: Cape Town


 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play