Breathalyser dismissal cases often arise from unexpected workplace scenarios, particularly in high-pressure roles. The workplace can be a stressful environment — for some, it’s the general atmosphere; for others, it’s the demanding nature of their duties. Consider a heavy-duty truck driver tasked with ensuring road safety and protecting valuable cargo. In one such breathalyser dismissal case, a driver used a Bioplus energy supplement to stay alert, only to face dismissal despite showing no visible signs of intoxication — all due to a low-level breathalyser reading.
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 breathalyser dismissal case highlights the critical need for employers to make informed, evidence-based decisions, particularly in disciplinary matters. Relying on assumptions without conducting a proper investigation can lead to substantively unfair outcomes, damaging both employee rights and organisational credibility. A breathalyser test alone may not justify dismissal for intoxication—especially where there are no visible signs of impairment and a reasonable alternative explanation, such as the consumption of a legal product like Bioplus. To avoid errors in similar breathalyser dismissal cases, employers should conduct thorough investigations, including physical observations, witness statements, and, where necessary, confirmatory medical testing. Only with this level of diligence can fair and legally sound decisions be made.
Need clarity on handling a breathalyser dismissal case? Contact Invictus Group for expert guidance and support. Call 086 173 7263 or email admin@invictusgroup.co.za. We’ll help you navigate the complexities of any breathalyser dismissal case while ensuring your business remains compliant and your workplace fair and legally sound.
