The workplace can be a highly stressful environment. For some, the pressure comes from the general atmosphere; for others, the demands tied to their job requirements can feel overwhelming. Consider, for example, the role of a heavy-duty truck driver – responsible not only for their safety and that of others on the road but also for the valuable cargo they transport. One such driver turned to a Bioplus energy supplement to stay focused and energised. What he didn’t anticipate, however, was that this decision would lead to his dismissal.
Case Study: Scheepers v Spar Eastern Cape Distribution Centre [2025] 1 BALR 98 (CCMA)
In this matter, the employee, a heavy-duty truck driver, was dismissed for allegedly reporting for duty under the influence of alcohol. The employer based its decision solely on two breathalyser readings – 0.023% and 0.018% – both relatively low, and enforced its zero-tolerance alcohol policy to dismiss the employee. The employee explained that he had taken Bioplus, an over-the-counter energy supplement containing 10% alcohol, along with other energy drinks, to help him stay alert. Importantly, there were no physical signs of intoxication, i.e. no slurred speech, loss of balance, or smell of alcohol. Furthermore, the employee had a clean disciplinary record. The CCMA commissioner found that the employer failed to prove that the employee was “under the influence” as required to justify a dismissal for intoxication. While the dismissal process met the procedural requirements for a fair dismissal, the CCMA commissioner ruled that the outcome was substantively unfair, awarding the employee R75,000 in compensation – the equivalent of six months’ salary.
Key Takeaway for Employers:
This case underscores the importance of employers making informed, evidence-based decisions, especially in disciplinary matters. Acting on assumptions without proper investigation can result in substantively unfair outcomes, with serious implications for both employees and organisational credibility. A breathalyser test on its own may not be sufficient grounds for dismissal due to intoxication, especially when there are no observable signs of impairment and when a plausible alternative explanation, such as consuming a legal product like Bioplus, exists. Employers are advised to undertake thorough investigations in such cases. This should include physical observations, witness statements, and, if needed, confirmatory medical tests. Only then can a fair and legally sound decision be made.
