LABOUR LAW MRL3702
ASSIGNMENT 1
UNIQUE NUMBER: 803243
QUESTION 1
Mthembu and others / NCT Durban Wood Chips [20198] 4 BALR 369 (CCMA)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In this matter, the employees were employed in a working environment that is highly dangerous of
nature. The company they worked for involved large machinery handling logs of wood between 30-
100 kgs. An error in such a work environment could place risk on the employee, other employees
and the business itself. The employer, implemented a zero-tolerance policy on substance abuse due
to the dangerous nature of the industry the business operated in. This was clear from its substance
abuse as the employer conducted “tool box talks” with its employees so that they are informed of
the approach towards substance abuse.
All employees underwent a drug test by supplying urine sample. Laboratory test confirmed that four
of the employees had tested positive for cannabis use. The applicants were found guilty under the
charge of being “under the influence of intoxicating substance whilst on duty” and were
subsequently dismissed. The applicants referred the matter to arbitration, challenging the fairness of
their dismissal.
ISSUE(S) IN DISPUTE
The question of law before the arbitrator was whether or not the dismissal of the applicants was
substantively fair.
COURT DECISION
The commissioner noted that the Constitutional Court having decriminalized the private use of
cannabis in the case of Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and others, has no
bearing on whether an employer can discipline employees for being under the influence of cannabis
in the workplace. The respondent’s operations indicated that such a prohibition was reasonable, and
the applicants knew that they were not allowed to report to work while under the influence of
cannabis. The applicant’s dismissal was therefore fair. The application was dismissed.
LEGAL OPINION
In my view, the high degree of danger of the working environment was an important factor in this
award. In upholding the employee’s dismissal, the commissioner considered the highly physically
dangerous working environment. It seems that employees who work in this type of environment are
more susceptible to dismissal than those employees who work in less dangerous environments.
The employer followed the correct procedures, because of the high degree of safety required of
companies with heavy machinery and dangerous equipment, therefore, it is reasonable for
employers to have in place rules prohibiting the consumption of such substances at the workplace or
reporting to work under such substances. The importance of addressing substance abuse in
ASSIGNMENT 1
UNIQUE NUMBER: 803243
QUESTION 1
Mthembu and others / NCT Durban Wood Chips [20198] 4 BALR 369 (CCMA)
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In this matter, the employees were employed in a working environment that is highly dangerous of
nature. The company they worked for involved large machinery handling logs of wood between 30-
100 kgs. An error in such a work environment could place risk on the employee, other employees
and the business itself. The employer, implemented a zero-tolerance policy on substance abuse due
to the dangerous nature of the industry the business operated in. This was clear from its substance
abuse as the employer conducted “tool box talks” with its employees so that they are informed of
the approach towards substance abuse.
All employees underwent a drug test by supplying urine sample. Laboratory test confirmed that four
of the employees had tested positive for cannabis use. The applicants were found guilty under the
charge of being “under the influence of intoxicating substance whilst on duty” and were
subsequently dismissed. The applicants referred the matter to arbitration, challenging the fairness of
their dismissal.
ISSUE(S) IN DISPUTE
The question of law before the arbitrator was whether or not the dismissal of the applicants was
substantively fair.
COURT DECISION
The commissioner noted that the Constitutional Court having decriminalized the private use of
cannabis in the case of Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and others, has no
bearing on whether an employer can discipline employees for being under the influence of cannabis
in the workplace. The respondent’s operations indicated that such a prohibition was reasonable, and
the applicants knew that they were not allowed to report to work while under the influence of
cannabis. The applicant’s dismissal was therefore fair. The application was dismissed.
LEGAL OPINION
In my view, the high degree of danger of the working environment was an important factor in this
award. In upholding the employee’s dismissal, the commissioner considered the highly physically
dangerous working environment. It seems that employees who work in this type of environment are
more susceptible to dismissal than those employees who work in less dangerous environments.
The employer followed the correct procedures, because of the high degree of safety required of
companies with heavy machinery and dangerous equipment, therefore, it is reasonable for
employers to have in place rules prohibiting the consumption of such substances at the workplace or
reporting to work under such substances. The importance of addressing substance abuse in
