Introduction
A zero-tolerance alcohol policy in the workplace means that any detectable presence of alcohol in an employee’s system while on duty is a violation, regardless of whether the employee is visibly intoxicated. This policy aims to ensure a safe and healthy work environment, particularly in high-risk industries.
However, the courts have started to scrutinise zero‑tolerance alcohol policies, as was found in the Labour Court case of Chill Beverages International (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C160/2024) [2025] ZALCJHB 298 (14 July 2025)
Let’s look at the Chill Beverages case in more detail.
Background
The Labour Court reviewed an arbitration award that had reinstated an employee dismissed by Chill Beverages after a positive breathalyser result. The CCMA commissioner found the dismissal substantively unfair.
The company operated a strict zero‑tolerance alcohol policy: no alcohol permitted in the bloodstream during working hours or within six hours before shift start. Violation could lead to disciplinary steps up to dismissal.
Facts
The employee, a forklift driver with six years of unblemished service, failed a breathalyser test on 20 May 2023. The test was conducted multiple times on different devices, all yielding positive results.
He explained that he had unknowingly consumed alcohol via a cough mixture; he showed no signs of intoxication or impairment and was not under the influence. He admitted the positive result but denied deliberate wrongdoing.
CCMA Findings
The commissioner accepted the employee was credible, found no intoxication, and noted the absence of visible impairment or warning signs. The employee’s first-offender status and sterling service record weighed in his favour.
The commissioner held that dismissal was disproportionate given the circumstances—even under a zero‑tolerance rule—and ordered reinstatement plus back pay of R24 600.
Labour Court Review
Chill Beverages challenged the award on reasonableness grounds, arguing that dismissal was appropriate given the high‑risk work context and zero‑tolerance policy.
The Court applied the established Sidumo/Herholdt reasonableness review standard and confirmed that commissioners’ awards must fall within a “band” of reasonable outcomes [Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others (CCT 85/06) [2007] ZACC 22; [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC) ; (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) BCLR 158 (CC) (5 October 2007)]
Labour Court’s Decision
The Court found the commissioner had carefully considered all relevant factors: the policy, risk level of the position, absence of impairment, unblemished disciplinary history, and the employee’s credible, albeit inadvertent breach.
It concluded that reinstatement was a decision a reasonable commissioner could reach and that dismissal would have been disproportionate in these circumstances.
The application to review and set aside the award was dismissed, with no order as to costs, as the applicant had acted in good faith.
Key Take Aways
- Zero‑tolerance policies are not a blanket justification for dismissal: context and proportionality are crucial.
- Employers must show dismissal is both appropriate and fair—even in strict‑policy settings.
- Positive breathalyser results require more than mere presence of alcohol: evidence of impairment or risk is essential.
- Labour Court is unlikely to interfere if the commissioner’s decision falls within a reasonable band.
Conclusion
This case reinforces that employers must apply zero‑tolerance discipline thoughtfully, with consideration of individual circumstance and fairness in mind.
