Pretoria - Lighting a joint before going to work can have dire consequences.
While the Constitutional Court legalised the consumption of cannabis for private use, it definitely did not allow the use of the green herb while in the workplace.
The Labour Court sitting in Johannesburg has confirmed the dismissal of two workers who tested positive for the substance at work.
The fact that the two were employed by PG Building Glass as manufacturing operators, where they worked in a dangerous environment with large forklifts, extremely hot processes and dangerous chemicals, and that the very heavy glass could potentially cut or crush a person, were all the more reason for them adhering to their employer’s zero tolerance policy for drugs and alcohol, the court found.
Trade union Numsa (the National Union of Metalworkers of SA) turned to court after the workers were dismissed in May 2020 following a disciplinary hearing where they were found guilty of misconduct.
The charge levelled against them was that they had tested positive for dagga in their systems while on duty.
Numsa argued that this was not a valid reason to fire anyone, especially in light of the Prince judgment in the Concourt, which legalised the private use of cannabis. The workers denied smoking a joint at work and said they did so at home.
PG Glass argued that its policy did not tolerate workers being drunk or under the influence of drugs at the workplace, and everyone knew it was a dismissible offence.
The company said it was also obliged in terms of the law, to provide a safe work environment.
One of the managers said employees may not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs or anything that could alter their mind for safety considerations.
It was to prevent employees who were influenced by alcohol and drugs from negatively affecting their co-workers and damaging equipment.
He said PG Glass took workplace safety very seriously because it had a moral, civil and legal duty to ensure the working environment was safe.
Both the fired workers confirmed during the disciplinary hearing that they had a training session on alcohol and drug dependency, and that they had attended the policy training.
It was stressed by Numsa that the workers did not smoke the weed at work, but at home.
They also argued that the Concourt referred to cannabis (or dagga) as a plant and not a drug – thus using it could not be against PG Glass’ drug policy.
Numsa further argued that in terms of the Constitutional Court judgment, dagga was no longer stigmatised as a drug and it could legally be used in one’s private space.
Judge Connie Prinsloo said the Constitutional Court did not declare cannabis to be a plant or a herb, as alleged by Numsa.
“The applicants’ understanding of the judgments they relied upon was either very limited or totally wrong and they moved from a wrong premise when they approached their case as one where dagga was no longer to be regarded as a drug, and thus automatically excluded from the respondent’s alcohol and drug policy,” the judge said.
She added that it was also evident from the Constitutional Court judgment that it did not offer any protection to employees against disciplinary action should they act in contravention of company policies or disciplinary codes.
The judge found the dismissal of the pair to be fair.
Pretoria News