Alcohol Policies in the workplace

Why a positive test alone is not enough to dismiss an employee

Introduction

This discussion looks at a recent decision by the CIPLA v Mwale & Others (C424/24) [2026] ZALCCT 22, where the Labour Court considered whether dismissing an employee based only on a positive alcohol test is fair.

The case highlights an important point for employers: simply detecting alcohol in an employee’s system does not automatically justify dismissal, especially where there is no clear sign that the employee was impaired or unable to work safely.

Background of the case study

In this matter, the employer dismissed an employee after a breathalyzer test showed a low level of alcohol in his system, which breached the company’s zero-tolerance policy. The policy treated any trace of alcohol as misconduct, regardless of whether the employee was actually affected by it.

The employee challenged the result and suggested that something he consumed earlier (like an energy drink) may have influenced the reading. Despite this, the employer relied only on the test result and proceeded with dismissal.

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) found the dismissal unfair, and the Labour Court agreed. The Court ruled that the employer’s reliance on the test alone, without further supporting evidence, was insufficient. The employee was therefore reinstated, with limited back pay.

Legal Principles

Under South African labour law, a dismissal must be both substantively fair (there must be a valid reason) and procedurally fair (a fair process must be followed).

When dealing with alcohol-related misconduct, employers must show more than just a positive reading.

They must prove:

• A valid workplace rule exists.

• The rule is important and necessary.

• The employee knew (or should have known) the rule.

• The rule was breached.

• The rule is applied consistently.

• The breach caused or could cause harm.

• Dismissal is a fair and appropriate sanction.

If there is no clear sign of impairment, the burden on the employer becomes even higher.

What the Court Emphasized

The Labour Court made it clear that zero-tolerance policies cannot be applied blindly.

Key points from the judgment include:

• A positive breathalyzer test on its own is not enough.

• Employers should confirm results with medical or laboratory testing if dismissal is being considered.

• There must be a link between alcohol presence and actual impairment, especially in high-risk jobs.

• Dismissal must be reasonable and proportionate to the situation.

Overall, the Court reinforced a move toward a more balanced, evidence-based approach rather than strict rule enforcement.

What this means for Employers

Employers can no longer rely only on the wording of a zero-tolerance policy. Instead, they must take a more practical and fair approach.

This means:

• Looking at the employee’s actual condition, not just the test result.

• Considering the nature of the job (e.g. office vs safety-critical work).

• Ensuring proper evidence is collected before making a decision.

• Avoiding automatic dismissal without assessing the full context.

Practical steps for Employers

To avoid unfair dismissal disputes, employers should strengthen both their policies and their procedures:

Use more than one form of evidence

Combine breathalyzer results with observations such as behaviour, co-ordination, speech, or smell of alcohol.

Introduce observation checklists.

Train supervisors to complete a simple checklist when impairment is suspected (e.g. balance, alertness, reaction time).

Confirm results where necessary

If the employee disputes the result or dismissal is likely, arrange for a blood or medical test.

Keep equipment compliant

Ensure breathalyzers are calibrated, certified, and used correctly by trained personnel.

Match the sanction to the situation

Consider alternatives like warnings, suspension, or counselling, especially for first offences or low readings.

Consider the role and risk level

A machine operator or driver may justify stricter action than an office-based employee.

Document everything

Keep detailed records of tests, observations, employee explanations, and the decision-making process.

Give employees a fair chance to respond

Allow them to explain the result, request retesting, or challenge the evidence.

Update policies regularly

Ensure alcohol policies reflect current legal standards and do not rely on automatic dismissal.

Provide awareness and training

Educate employees on the policy, risks, and consequences to prevent issues before they arise.

Simple Conclusion

This case shows that a positive alcohol test is only one piece of the puzzle. Employers must look at the full picture, especially whether the employee was actually impaired or posed a risk.

In short: presence of alcohol is not the same as being unfit for work.

A fair approach means gathering proper evidence, applying policies reasonably, and making decisions based on the specific situation, not just the rule alone.

T Da Costa