(-/ Ala -)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case NoxC, 160/2024
In the matter between:
CHILL BEVERAGES INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
P SACKS N.O. Second Respondent
AMCU obo TSAMSE Third Respondent
Heard: 25 June 2025
Delivered: 14 July 2025
JUDGMENT
VENTER AJ
2
Introduction
[1] In this opposed application, the Applicant approached this court seeking an order
reviewing and setting aside the arbitration award, dated 10 April 2024, issued by
the Second Respondent, acting under the auspices of the First Respondent, the
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
[2] In the award, the Second Respondent had found that the dismissal of the Third
Respondent was substantively unfair.
Background and evidence before the Second Respondent
[3] The Third Respondent was employed by the Applicant during June 2017 and
served as a Warehouse Controller at the time of his dismissal. The Applicant was
dismissed for alleged gross misconduct after failing a breathalyser test on 20
May 2023.
[4] The Applicant manufactures and distributes various beverages, some containing
alcohol. The Applicant was appointed as a forklift driver and had to transport raw
materials. The items lifted included bags weighing up to one tonne of sugar or
containers of up to 1000 litres of liquid ingredients.
[5] Aggrieved by his dismissal, the Applicant referred a dispute to the First
Respondent in terms of section 188 read with section 191 of the Labour Relations
Act, 66 of 1995 (the LRA). The arbitration hearing was held on 23 January 2024
and 27 March 2024. The arbitration award central to the current application was
issued on 10 April 2024.
3
[6] The Second Respondent found that the dismissal was substantively unfair
(procedural fairness was not disputed) and ordered the reinstatement of the Third
Respondent along with payment of R 24 600 in lieu of arrear salary.
[7] During the arbitration proceedings, it was undisputed that the Applicant had an
Alcohol, Drug and Substance Abuse Policy in place and that the Third
Respondent was aware of the policy. The policy prohibits employees from having
any intoxicating substances in their bloodstream during working;hours, and they
are forbidden from using any alcohol during work or within 6 hours before the
start of their shift.
[8] The policy includes a zero-tolerance clause regardingyalcohol and states that no
alcohol in an employee’s blood is permitted. Higher levels of alcohol would
automatically lead to a disciplinary hearing and possible dismissal.
[9] On the day in question, 20 May 2023, the Third Respondent was an hour late for
work. All employees are subjected to a breathalyser test when entering or exiting
the factory. The Third Respondent tested positive and had to undergo the test
several times. The Applicantalso used different devices to ensure that the initial
device was,not faulty. The Third Respondent was required to wait in the canteen,
where he could eat and drink before being re-tested. He was tested again and
failed, once'more.
[10], Subsequently, the Third Respondent wrote a statement and submitted that he
had used medication and was unaware that it contained alcohol. Crucially, the
Third Respondent did not smell of alcohol and displayed no visible signs of being
intoxicated. It should also be noted that he was a first offender with six years of
service at the time of his dismissal.