Court warns businesses that suspicion and late evidence cannot justify dismissals

WORKWISE | Employer's intoxication claim falls short in Labour Court

Unilec SA ordered to pay legal costs after firing ill worker without proof of alcohol use

Jonathan Goldberg

19 OCT 2026, 12:17

3 min read

The Labour Court has dismissed an application by Unilec SA to overturn a CCMA award that ruled a worker's dismissal for alleged workplace intoxication was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Reaffirming that the burden of proof rests entirely on the employer, the court emphasised that mere suspicion cannot replace verified, objective evidence.

The employee, who had arrived at work solely to consult the company doctor due to illness, was booked off sick by two separate practitioners, neither of whom detected signs of intoxication. With Unilec failing to produce blood or breathalyser test results during arbitration, the court dismissed the review and ordered the company to cover the worker's legal costs.

SummaryOpen the quick read

The Labour Court dismissed Unilec SA's bid to overturn a CCMA ruling that found an employee's dismissal for alleged intoxication unfair.
The general worker visited his workplace solely to see the in-house medical doctor after falling ill, and two separate doctors booked him off sick without noting any alcohol use.
Unilec failed to present objective proof, such as blood or breathalyser test results, relying merely on witness statements and an invoice.
The court refused to consider new documentary evidence introduced on review, noting that employers cannot bolster cases after an unfavourable arbitration.
Unilec was ordered to pay the employee's legal costs, underscoring that employers must substantiate intoxication allegations with credible evidence.

The Labour Court has reaffirmed that employers bear the burden of proving allegations of workplace intoxication, dismissing an application by Unilec SA (Pty) Ltd to overturn a CCMA arbitration award that found an employee's dismissal to be both procedurally and substantively unfair.

In Unilec SA (Pty) Ltd v Mahlo and Others (JR593/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 431 (10 October 2025), The Labour Court dismissed the employer's review application and ordered it to pay the employee's legal costs.

The employee had been employed by Unilec as a general worker since December 2021.

On 19 September 2022, he reported to work to visit the company's in-house doctor because he was feeling ill. Before reaching the doctor, he was questioned by his supervisor about why he was not at work.

The company doctor examined the employee and booked him off sick. The following day, he consulted another doctor, who also certified that he was unfit for work until 21 September 2022.

Despite these medical assessments, Unilec later charged the employee with being under the influence of an intoxicating substance while at work on 19 September 2022. Following a disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed.

The employee referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, where the Commissioner found that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair.

Unilec then approached the Labour Court to review and set aside the arbitration award.

Unilec argued that the Commissioner had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and that a reasonable decision-maker would have concluded that the employee was intoxicated.

The Court held that the Commissioner had carefully considered all the evidence and was entitled to accept the employee's version that he had attended work solely to seek medical treatment.

Significantly, neither of the two doctors who examined him detected any signs of alcohol intoxication.

The Court also noted that Unilec failed to produce objective evidence supporting its allegation.

No blood or alcohol test results were presented during the arbitration. Instead, the employer relied largely on witness evidence and an invoice indicating that certain tests had been performed, which did not establish that the employee was under the influence of alcohol.

Unilec attempted to introduce additional documentary evidence during the review proceedings.

The Court refused, emphasising that a review is confined to the evidence that was before the Commissioner.

An employer cannot seek to bolster its case with new evidence after an unfavourable arbitration outcome.

Finding that the Commissioner's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, the Labour Court dismissed the review application and ordered Unilec to pay the employee's costs.

The judgment serves as an important reminder that allegations of workplace intoxication must be supported by credible and objective evidence.

Suspicion alone is insufficient, particularly where medical evidence points in the opposite direction.

In this weekly column, labour lawyer Jonathan Goldberg, chair of Global Business Solutions, looks at various aspects of labour law

Click here to join the Daily Dispatch’s WhatsApp channel and get the latest news delivered straight to your phone

Daily Dispatch