Why Alcohol in the Workplace Is a Serious Employer Concern

Alcohol can affect concentration, coordination, judgement, reaction time and decision-making. These effects may create significant risks in almost any workplace, but the consequences are particularly serious where employees operate machinery, drive vehicles, work with chemicals or perform quality-control functions.

Within the plastics converting industry, an impaired employee may be required to work near:

• Injection moulding machines.
• Extrusion and blow-moulding lines.
• Cutting, grinding and mixing equipment.
• Forklifts and company vehicles.
• Heated equipment and moving machine parts.
• Electrical systems and compressed air.
• Chemicals and hazardous materials.
• Automated production and packaging systems.

A delay in reaction time or lapse in judgement may cause injury, damage to machinery, defective products, production interruptions or harm to other employees.

Employers therefore have strong operational and safety reasons for implementing clear alcohol policies and fitness-for-duty requirements.

Alcohol in the System and Being Under the Influence Are Not Always the Same

One of the most important distinctions when Dealing with Alcohol in the Workplace is the difference between:

• Having alcohol present in the body.
• Breaching a zero-tolerance rule.
• Being visibly impaired or under the influence.
• Being unable to perform duties safely and competently.

The wording of the disciplinary charge matters. An employer who charges an employee with being “under the influence” may need to prove that the employee’s ability to perform their duties was affected.

A positive breathalyser result may support such a case, but it may not always prove actual impairment on its own.

In Transnet Freight Rail v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others, the Labour Court explained that an employee is under the influence where the employee is unable to perform the duties entrusted to them with the skill expected of a sober person. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

Where the workplace rule instead prohibits any detectable alcohol in an employee’s system, the employer must prove that the employee knew or reasonably should have known about that rule and breached it.

Even then, dismissal must still be fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

First Confirm That the Breathalyser Test Is Reliable

Before disciplinary action is considered, the employer should confirm that the breathalyser process was properly conducted.

A credible testing process should ordinarily include:

• A suitable and properly maintained breathalyser device.
• Evidence that the device was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s requirements.
• A trained or competent person administering the test.
• Accurate recording of the result.
• The date and exact time of the test.
• The employee’s shift-start time.
• The identity of the person who conducted the test.
• A second confirmatory test after an appropriate interval.
• A signed record or witness confirmation where possible.

A second test helps identify possible errors and provides stronger evidence than a single reading.

The employee should also be informed of the result and given an opportunity to observe or confirm the testing process where reasonably possible.

Why Calibration and Testing Records Matter

A breathalyser result may be challenged if the employer cannot show that the equipment was functioning correctly.

Employers should maintain:

• Calibration certificates.
• Device maintenance records.
• Testing procedures.
• Training records for authorised testers.
• Test-result registers.
• Records of confirmatory tests.

The absence of proper records may weaken the employer’s evidence at a disciplinary enquiry, bargaining council or CCMA proceeding.

Testing should not be conducted casually or selectively. The process should follow a written company procedure that employees understand.

Assess the Evidence Holistically

A breathalyser result should form part of the evidence rather than automatically becoming the entire case.

The employer should assess all relevant circumstances, including:

• The breathalyser reading.
• Whether a second test confirmed the result.
• The employee’s appearance and behaviour.
• Speech, balance and coordination.
• The smell of alcohol.
• Changes in mood or conduct.
• The employee’s ability to follow instructions.
• The nature of the employee’s duties.
• Whether the position is safety-sensitive.
• The employee’s explanation.
• The timing of any alleged consumption.
• The employee’s disciplinary history.

Managers and supervisors should describe what they actually observed rather than relying on conclusions such as “the employee looked drunk”.

Objective observations are more useful, for example:

• The employee stumbled when walking.
• The employee’s speech was slurred.
• The employee struggled to follow a routine instruction.
• A strong smell of alcohol was detected.
• The employee’s eyes appeared unfocused.

Where possible, at least two people should observe and record the employee’s condition independently.

Give the Employee a Fair Opportunity to Explain

The employee should be asked to explain the positive result before management reaches a conclusion.

Possible explanations may include:

• Alcohol consumed the previous evening.
• Cough medicine or another medication containing alcohol.
• Mouthwash or a similar product.
• A medical condition.
• A challenge to the testing procedure.
• A claim that the device was inaccurate.
• Alcohol consumed unknowingly.

An explanation does not have to be accepted automatically. The employer may investigate whether it is credible, consistent with the test reading and supported by available evidence.

However, an employee should not be dismissed without having had a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation.

A Positive Breathalyser Test Does Not Automatically Justify Dismissal

Recent Labour Court decisions confirm that a positive alcohol test does not make dismissal automatically fair, even where an employer has a zero-tolerance policy.

In Chill Beverages International (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others, an employee was dismissed after testing positive for alcohol. The employee explained that he had used cough medicine, displayed no signs of intoxication and had a clean disciplinary record.

The CCMA found the dismissal substantively unfair, and the Labour Court dismissed the employer’s review application. The judgment illustrates that the existence of a zero-tolerance policy does not remove the need to consider the employee’s explanation, actual impairment, disciplinary record and the proportionality of dismissal. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

Employers should therefore avoid policies or disciplinary practices that state that every positive result will automatically lead to dismissal.

A policy may establish strict workplace standards, but the sanction must still be determined fairly in the circumstances of the individual case.

Consider the Employee’s Role and the Workplace Risk

The seriousness of an alcohol-related incident may depend significantly on the employee’s duties.

A positive result may present heightened risk where the employee:

• Operates heavy or fast-moving machinery.
• Drives a forklift, truck or company vehicle.
• Works at heights.
• Handles chemicals or hazardous substances.
• Maintains electrical or mechanical equipment.
• Performs lockout or safety-isolation procedures.
• Supervises high-risk production activities.
• Is responsible for emergency response.

In these roles, even minor impairment may create unacceptable risk.

The safety-sensitive nature of a position is an important factor, but it does not remove the employer’s obligation to prove the allegation and follow a fair process.

Apply the Company Alcohol Policy Consistently

Consistency is essential when Dealing with Alcohol in the Workplace.

Employers should apply the same testing, investigation and disciplinary standards across:

• Different departments.
• Different shifts.
• Permanent and temporary employees.
• Managers and junior employees.
• Employees with comparable disciplinary records.

Consistency does not always require identical sanctions. Different outcomes may be justified by differences in:

• The employee’s position.
• The level of workplace risk.
• The test reading.
• Evidence of impairment.
• The employee’s explanation.
• Previous warnings.
• Whether an accident or loss occurred.
• Whether the employee was honest during the investigation.

The employer should nevertheless be able to explain why apparently similar cases resulted in different outcomes.

What Should an Alcohol and Substance Policy Include?

A clear policy gives employees advance notice of the required standard and provides management with a consistent process.

The policy should address:

• The requirement to report for duty fit for work.
• Whether the workplace applies a zero-tolerance standard.
• The meaning of being under the influence.
• Possession or consumption of alcohol on company premises.
• Alcohol use during working hours or breaks.
• Safety-sensitive positions.
• When testing may take place.
• Who may administer tests.
• The confirmatory-testing procedure.
• The employee’s right to provide an explanation.
• Possible disciplinary consequences.
• Confidentiality and record keeping.
• Dependency, counselling and rehabilitation procedures.

Employees should receive training on the policy during induction and whenever the policy is updated.

Immediate Steps When an Employee Fails a Breathalyser Test

When an employee tests positive, the employer’s first priority should be workplace safety.

A practical response may include:

1. Remove the employee from safety-sensitive duties.
2. Prevent the employee from operating machinery or vehicles.
3. Record the initial test result.
4. Conduct a confirmatory test.
5. Record objective observations of the employee’s condition.
6. Ask the employee for an explanation.
7. Arrange safe transport where necessary.
8. Preserve all testing and witness records.
9. Investigate the incident before deciding on disciplinary action.

Employers should not allow an employee who may be impaired to drive themselves home.

Removal from duty for safety reasons does not automatically determine guilt. The disciplinary decision should follow after the evidence has been assessed.

Misconduct or Alcohol Dependency?

Employers must distinguish between ordinary misconduct involving alcohol and possible alcohol dependency.

Alcohol-Related Misconduct

The issue may be misconduct where an employee knowingly consumes alcohol before or during work, breaches a clear rule or reports for duty unable to work safely.

The employee’s conduct, knowledge of the rule and responsibility for the breach are central to the enquiry.

Alcohol Dependency or Incapacity

Where an employee raises a genuine dependency problem, the employer should not automatically treat the matter as ordinary misconduct.

Possible dependency may require:

• An appropriate assessment.
• Referral to an employee assistance programme.
• Counselling or rehabilitation.
• Reasonable monitoring.
• A structured return-to-work plan.
• An incapacity process where appropriate.

However, an employee cannot necessarily avoid accountability merely by asserting dependency after misconduct has occurred.

Employers should assess whether there is evidence of dependency, whether assistance was offered and whether the employee participated meaningfully in rehabilitation or support.

What If the Employee Refuses Rehabilitation?

Where genuine dependency is established, employers should ordinarily consider support and rehabilitation in line with policy.

However, the employment relationship may become difficult to sustain where an employee:

• Repeatedly refuses assistance.
• Fails to attend agreed rehabilitation.
• Continues reporting for duty impaired.
• Breaches repeated warnings or return-to-work conditions.
• Places colleagues or operations at ongoing risk.

The employer should document all assistance offered, the employee’s response and any subsequent incidents.

The distinction between incapacity and misconduct should be considered carefully with specialist labour-relations guidance.

Follow a Fair Disciplinary Process

Disciplinary action must satisfy both substantive and procedural fairness.

Substantive Fairness

The employer should establish:

• That a valid workplace rule existed.
• That the employee knew or should have known the rule.
• That the employee breached the rule.
• That the rule was applied consistently.
• That the chosen sanction was fair and proportionate.

Procedural Fairness

The employee should receive:

• Clear notice of the allegation.
• Reasonable time to prepare.
• An opportunity to respond.
• An opportunity to present evidence.
• Reasonable assistance or representation in line with workplace rules.
• A fair and impartial consideration of the case.
• Communication of the outcome.

Since 4 September 2025, employers should align disciplinary processes with the new Code of Practice: Dismissal, rather than referring only to the former Schedule 8 code. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

Choosing an Appropriate Sanction

Dismissal may be justified in serious cases, particularly where the employee’s conduct created significant safety risk or where the employee has repeated similar misconduct despite prior warnings.

Relevant factors include:

• The wording and seriousness of the rule.
• The employee’s duties.
• The level of risk created.
• The breathalyser result.
• Observable evidence of impairment.
• The employee’s explanation.
• The employee’s honesty.
• Previous disciplinary warnings.
• Length of service.
• Whether an accident or loss occurred.
• Consistency with previous cases.
• The possibility of corrective discipline.

Possible outcomes may include:

• Counselling.
• A written warning.
• A final written warning.
• Referral for assistance or rehabilitation.
• Temporary removal from safety-sensitive duties.
• Dismissal in sufficiently serious or repeated cases.

Employers should avoid applying dismissal mechanically simply because a policy describes alcohol breaches as serious misconduct.

Document Every Stage of the Process

Proper documentation is essential if the disciplinary outcome is later challenged.

The employer’s file should contain:

• The alcohol and substance-use policy.
• Proof that the employee received or was trained on the policy.
• The breathalyser results.
• The device calibration record.
• The tester’s details and statement.
• Witness observations.
• The employee’s explanation.
• Relevant medical or supporting information.
• The disciplinary notice.
• Minutes or records of the enquiry.
• The reasons for the finding and sanction.
• Records of support or rehabilitation offered.

A detailed record helps demonstrate that the employer considered all the evidence rather than relying only on the positive test.

Common Employer Mistakes

Employers increase the risk of an unfair dismissal finding when they:

• Rely on only one breathalyser test.
• Use equipment without calibration records.
• Fail to record observable signs of impairment.
• Ignore the employee’s explanation.
• Confuse alcohol presence with incapacity to work.
• Apply a zero-tolerance rule inconsistently.
• Charge the employee with the wrong offence.
• Assume dismissal is automatic.
• Ignore possible dependency.
• Fail to follow the company’s own procedure.
• Impose a sanction without considering mitigating factors.

Best-Practice Checklist for Employers

Employers can strengthen their approach to Dealing with Alcohol in the Workplace by taking the following steps:

• Review the company alcohol and substance-use policy.
• Define fitness for duty and prohibited conduct clearly.
• Identify safety-sensitive positions.
• Use calibrated and reliable testing equipment.
• Train authorised testers and supervisors.
• Conduct confirmatory tests.
• Record objective signs of impairment.
• Give employees an opportunity to explain.
• Distinguish misconduct from dependency.
• Apply rules consistently.
• Consider all relevant factors before dismissal.
• Document every stage of the process.
• Obtain labour-relations advice in serious cases.

The PCASA Advantage

Dealing with Alcohol in the Workplace requires employers to balance workplace safety, employee rights, operational risk and fair disciplinary procedures.

PCASA is an Employers’ Organisation exclusively representing members in South Africa’s plastics industry.

PCASA assists members with:

• Drafting alcohol and substance-use policies.
• Developing breathalyser-testing procedures.
• Training managers and supervisors.
• Investigating positive alcohol tests.
• Preparing disciplinary notices.
• Conducting or supporting disciplinary enquiries.
• Determining fair and proportionate sanctions.
• Managing alcohol-dependency cases.
• Reviewing rehabilitation and support procedures.
• Representing employers in labour disputes.

Early advice can help employers protect workplace safety while avoiding procedural errors and unfair disciplinary outcomes.

Manage Breathalyser Failures Safely, Lawfully and Fairly

A failed breathalyser test should trigger a structured safety and investigation process, not an automatic dismissal.

Employers should confirm the reliability of the test, record objective evidence, listen to the employee’s explanation and determine whether the matter involves misconduct, impairment or dependency.

Clear policies and consistent procedures allow employers to act firmly where safety is threatened while still complying with the requirements of fair labour practice.

PCASA provides plastics-industry employers with practical guidance, policy support, training and representation for alcohol-related workplace incidents.