Enterprise expertise
A zero-tolerance coverage in opposition to using hashish might violate an worker's proper to privateness and dignity, as a mere constructive check for hashish will not be adequate purpose to conclude {that a} worker is prevented within the efficiency of his duties.
Nonetheless, that is solely given if the worker will not be ““stoned,” intoxicated or impaired throughout working hours, on the premises, or if the worker was an worker who operates or works with heavy and harmful equipment.
This choice was reached in a labor enchantment court docket case not too long ago established between Bernadette Enever v Barloworld Gear South Africa, A Division of Barloworld South Africa (Pty) Ltd.
The case was adopted and subsequently analyzed by ENS Africa authorized specialists Audrey Johnson, Kerrie-Lee Olivier and Tswelopele Ramokoka.
0_20240423-bernadette-enever-v-barloworld-judgment-case-no_j86_22
Background
The employer, on this case, strictly prohibits using medication and alcohol within the office, in accordance with its Alcohol and Substance Abuse Coverage, imposes a zero tolerance stance for workers who enter the office inebriated or medication.
Upon arrival at work, the employer carried out a drug check, and the worker was discovered to be constructive for hashish.
After failing further exams as outlined in firm coverage, the worker was terminated following a disciplinary listening to.
The worker argued that after the choice of the Constitutional Court docket in 2018, which accepted that it isn’t a legal offense to make use of hashish within the privateness of the house, he began utilizing hashish, which helped to scale back his habit to prescription remedy and it helped together with his nervousness and sleep problem. He additionally mentioned he smoked hashish each evening and on weekends.
The labor court docket concluded that the corporate's zero-tolerance coverage on hashish, utilized to each hashish and alcohol, was truthful.
Regardless of the information of the coverage, the worker “continued to violate”, and thus discovered his dismissal justified, based mostly on his voluntary non-compliance, and decided that it was not discriminatory, even contemplating the sentence of the Constitutional Court docket .
The worker took the case to the Labor Enchantment Court docket (LAC).
Labor Enchantment Court docket
The LAC “needed to decide, amongst different points, if the coverage is discriminatory and, subsequently, if the corporate subjected the worker to unfair discrimination that might mechanically make his dismissal unfair,” the specialists defined.
ENS practitioners acknowledged that the LAC acknowledged that the zero-tolerance strategy to testing constructive for hashish at work “resulted in unfair discrimination of the worker as a result of it violated his dignity by violating his proper to privateness”.
This was for the next causes:
- The worker examined constructive for hashish, however was not impaired at work or in a high-risk position;
- The 2018 Constitutional Court docket ruling highlighted the worker's proper to privateness, together with the consumption of hashish at dwelling;
- The worker used hashish exterior of labor hours for recreation and to handle nervousness;
- Optimistic hashish exams, because of longer blood retention, don’t trigger disdain, in contrast to alcohol;
- Relying solely on blood exams for hashish with out indicators of impairment violates the privateness and dignity of the worker;
- The corporate couldn’t show that the worker was unfair at work, questioning the equity of the zero tolerance coverage;
- The coverage was deemed extreme and a violation of the worker's privateness rights;
- The LAC dominated the dismissal as mechanically unfair, citing discrimination beneath the Employment Fairness Act and the Labor Relations Act.
Essential factors for employers
Johnson, Olivier and Ramokoka mentioned this ruling presents key findings that employers ought to contemplate when creating their office substance insurance policies.
- The appliance of a strict ban on using hashish may violate the worker's rights to privateness and private dignity;
- There should be a transparent connection between the appliance of a strict no-cannabis coverage and making certain office security;
- Merely testing constructive for hashish doesn’t mechanically indicate that an worker is unfit to carry out their job duties;
- If an employer can present that the constructive check for hashish has a direct impression on the worker's means to carry out his job safely, a court docket can attain a special verdict than the case talked about above.
“… The conclusion I’ve reached is simply truth particular based mostly on this case and the character of the Appellant's work – it doesn’t prolong to all of the Respondent's workers, a few of whom do drastically extra harmful jobs, and for whom to not be. in a position to smoke hashish in any respect – in the event that they wish to proceed their employment with the Appellant – could also be extra justified,” the court docket mentioned.
“Accordingly, making use of a zero-tolerance strategy to testing constructive for hashish contained in a office coverage will should be fastidiously thought-about going ahead, and far will rely on the info of a selected matter,” they mentioned. the specialists.
Supply:
