In a significant ruling that underscores the critical importance of evidence in workplace dismissals, the Johannesburg Labour Court has delivered a resounding victory to a former general worker, Ntsabi Mahlo, who was fired for allegedly being drunk on duty, finding that his employer, Unilec SA, failed spectacularly to prove its case.
The legal saga began on September 19, 2022, when Mahlo, an employee since December 2021, reported to work feeling unwell. He consulted an in-house doctor who, after an examination, certified him as sick and booked him off work. This diagnosis was corroborated the very next day by a second doctor, who extended his sick leave.
Despite this medical validation, the company’s management alleged that on that same Monday, Mahlo had reported for duty under the influence of alcohol. A disciplinary hearing was convened, which resulted in his immediate dismissal.
Believing the dismissal to be both procedurally and substantively unfair, Mahlo took his case to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The Commissioner ruled in his favour, finding the dismissal unjust. Unilec SA, dissatisfied, escalated the matter to the Labour Court, arguing that the Commissioner had ignored direct evidence and reached an unreasonable conclusion.
Presiding over the review, Acting Judge Pango delivered a scathing assessment of the employer’s case. The judge noted that the cornerstone of the company’s argument—that Mahlo was intoxicated—was fundamentally unsupported by the most basic evidence. Crucially, neither of the two doctors who examined him on consecutive days detected any trace of alcohol; instead, they independently confirmed he was ill.
“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,” Judge Pango stated.
In a further blow to the employer’s case, the court refused to admit new documentary evidence that Unilec SA’s legal representative attempted to introduce at the review stage, noting it had not been presented during the original CCMA hearing. “It cannot now, through the back door, seek to rely on evidence that was never placed before the Commissioner,” the judge asserted, emphasizing that a Commissioner’s decision must be based solely on the material presented at the arbitration.
Dismissing the application with costs, the court’s ruling serves as a stark reminder to employers that serious allegations, such as intoxication, require concrete, verifiable proof—not just suspicion—and that the legal system will not tolerate attempts to rectify a poor initial case by introducing evidence at a later stage.
About The Author
