Labour court rules in favour of officer dismissed for cannabis use with R553 000 backpay

The Labour Court has upheld an arbitration award reinstating a learner law enforcement officer who was dismissed after testing positive for cannabis, ruling the dismissal was substantively unfair. In a significant decision, the court dismissed the application made by the City of Cape Town to review and set aside an arbitration award that reinstated Keegan Mantis,a law enforcement officer dismissed following a positive drug test. The judgment was delivered on Thursday, validating the findings of the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) which concluded that Mantis’ dismissal was unwarranted.

Mantis, represented by the South African Municipal Workers’ Union (SAMWU), held a position classified as high risk, involving potential responsibilities such as carrying firearms, driving official vehicles, and responding to emergencies. His troubles began in February 2023 when he underwent a random workplace drug test that revealed cannabis consumption. Following a disciplinary hearing, Mantis was dismissed on October 31, 2023, for violating the City’s Substance Abuse Policy, which maintains a strict zero-tolerance stance against drug and alcohol use among on-duty employees.

Challenging his dismissal, Mantis took his case to arbitration at the SALGBC. During the arbitration process, he admitted to failing the drug test, but the crux of the matter centred on whether the penalty of dismissal was a proportionate response for a first-time offence. According to the arbitrator’s findings, while the City had implemented a zero-tolerance policy, legal standards necessitating proportional treatment must not be overlooked.

[paywall]

Citing a previous Labour Appeal Court decision, the arbitrator emphasised that a positive drug test does not inherently indicate intoxication or impairment at work. Notably, the City failed to present substantial evidence that Mantis was unfit for duty at the time of the test; it was established that he was not performing any high-risk activities such as carrying a firearm or driving. The arbitrator concluded that dismissal for a first offence was overly severe, opting instead for reinstatement and awarding back pay of over R197,000.

Following this decision, the City sought to overturn the ruling, asserting that the arbitrator’s judgement reflected a gross irregularity and dismissed material evidence pertaining to the nature of the high-risk occupation. The Labour Court, however, clarified that there is a distinction between an appeal and a review, reinforcing that an arbitration award can only be annulled if both the reasoning and outcome are deemed unreasonable. Acting Judge May highlighted the importance of evaluating the entirety of circumstances when determining appropriate sanctions, such as the gravity of the breached rule and the implications of the misconduct.

[/paywall]