Keep off the grass: Dismissed for testing positive for cannabis at work

By Jose Jorge, Director and Siyabonga Tembe, Associate, Employment, Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr


In Mthembu and Others v NCT Durban Wood Chips [2019] 4 BALR 369 (CCMA), the arbitrator had to decide whether the dismissal of employees who tested positive for cannabis at work was fair.


In this matter, the employees were employed in a workplace that is fraught with danger. The employer’s business involves dangerous machinery and vehicles, and the conveying of large logs weighing between 30 and 100 kgs. An error in the workplace could cause fatalities. The employer, as part of its workplace safety regulations, adopted a zero-tolerance stance on substance abuse. This was clear from its substance abuse policy and the regular “toolbox” safety talks it held with employees.


In the middle of 2017, the employer conducted drug tests on all its employees. Laboratory tests on the urine samples confirmed that four of the employees had tested positive for cannabis use. The employer charged them with being “under the influence of intoxicating substances whilst on duty”.


The employees admitted to having smoked cannabis, however, they maintained that they had done so in their spare time at home and not at work.


The arbitrator in his award took into account that the Constitutional Court has decriminalised the private use of cannabis. Nonetheless, this does not give employees licence to attend at work under the influence of cannabis. Like with alcohol, where consumption of cannabis impairs an employee’s ability to work to the standard, care and skill required by the employer, the employer is entitled to take disciplinary action against the employee.


The arbitrator found that due to the dangerous nature of the workplace, it was reasonable for the employer to have in place rules prohibiting the consumption of cannabis at work and reporting to work under the influence of cannabis. He found that the employees were aware of the employer’s safety requirements and the substance abuse policy. The employer had given them ample opportunity to adjust their private use of cannabis in accordance with their work requirements and it was up to them to make sure that when they smoked cannabis for private use that it should result in them not reporting for work under the influence.


The arbitrator held that the employees, by being under the influence of intoxicating substances whilst on duty, had wilfully disregarded the employer’s safety rules. They were aware of the employer’s zero-tolerance policy and the possibility of dismissal if they tested positive. Accordingly, he found that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.


The consequences of the private use of cannabis in the workplace is a new and developing area of our labour law. Cannabis may be detected in the bloodstream and in urine long after it has been consumed. Employers are advised to rely on more than just a drug test to show that an employee was under the influence of cannabis at the workplace. Being under the influence, may not always be a sufficient reason to dismiss an employee and each case will have to be evaluated on its own merits. However, this case illustrates that even though the private use of cannabis has been decriminalised, employers can still discipline and dismiss employees who report for duty under the influence of cannabis where they may pose a risk to themselves and others.


For more information contact Jose Jorge at or Siyabonga Tembe at 

Article published with the kind courtesy of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com








Case Law Summaries and Articles


Can employees be dismissed for refusing to accept new terms and conditions of employment?

Can an employer dismiss employees because they refuse to agree to a change to their terms and conditions of employment? An initial answer may be, “yes”.

Read More >>>


Escape route: “Resignation with immediate effect”

The latest case in the ‘disciplining employees who have resigned with immediate effect’ saga has brought about more uncertainty as to whether an employee who resigns with immediate effect shortly before a disciplinary hearing can avoid disciplinary action and subsequent dismissal.

Read More >>>


Freedom of expression or incitement to commit an offence? A constitutional challenge

On 4 July 2019, the North Gauteng High Court handed down judgment in the case of The EFF and other v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and other (87638/2017 and 45666/2017) in which the EFF and Julius Malema (the applicants) sought to have s18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act, No 17 of 1956 (Riotous Act) declared unconstitutional.

Read More >>>


Consolidated, comprehensive or general final written warnings

Regarding dismissal, according to the Code of Good Practice, “the courts have endorsed the concept of corrective or progressive discipline. This approach regards the purpose of discipline as a means for employees to know and understand what standards are required of them.

Read More >>>







Courses and Workshops




COVID-19 Workplace Preparedness Health, Safety and Claims Management Course

15 July 2020 (08:30 – 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

POPIA: Protection of Personal Information Act

17 July 2020 (09:00 - 12:00)

Interactive Online Course

Health and Safety Representative and Committee Training Course

23 July 2020 (08:30 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Basic Labour Relations

31 July 2020 (09:00 - 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Covid19: The Reality: Workplace Matters After Lockdown

24 July 2020 (09:00 - 14:00)

Interactive Online Course

The OHS Act and the Responsibilities of Management

30 July 2020 (08:30 – 16:00)

Interactive Online Course

Management and Leadership Skills

05, 06 & 07 August 2020

Interactive Online Course 

 Our Clients 


Android App On Google Play

Android App On Google Play