Alcohol and the Incapacity vs. Misconduct Conundrum: A Legal Analysis

The delicate balance between addressing employee misconduct and recognizing incapacity due to alcohol-related issues presents a significant challenge for stakeholders in the workplace. A recent case, African People’s Trade Union v. Sasol Steam Plant, sheds light on these complexities and underscores the need for clear guidelines when dealing with such matters.

Case Background

In African People’s Trade Union v. Sasol Steam Plant, the applicant, a maintenance operator, faced dismissal by Sasol Steam Station 2. His offense? Absence without leave for four days, attributed to excessive drinking. The applicant, however, claimed that he was an alcoholic and that his absence was authorized by a medical certificate. His challenge to the fairness of his dismissal led to a hearing before the National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry (NBCCI).

Facts of the Case

The applicant’s actions were as follows:

1. Sunday Evening Call: He phoned his supervisor, admitting he was drunk and unable to report for duty on Monday.
2. Unnotified Absence: He continued to be absent for the next three days without notifying his supervisor.
3. Medical Certificate: On Wednesday, he consulted a doctor and obtained a medical certificate, booking him off sick from Monday to Thursday.
4. Guilty Plea: He reported for duty on Friday but was charged with unauthorized absenteeism and failing to give advance notice of his absence. He pleaded guilty to the second charge.

Legal Principles

The commissioner faced a critical decision: Was the applicant’s absence due to alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence?

• Alcohol Abuse: This implies misconduct, suggesting that the applicant’s actions were wilful and contrary to workplace standards.
• Alcohol Dependence: This implies incapacity, indicating that the applicant’s condition prevented him from fulfilling his duties.

The respondent’s disciplinary code prescribed dismissal for absenteeism exceeding four days.

Commissioner’s Findings

The commissioner made the following determinations:

1. Not an Alcoholic: The applicant was not an alcoholic, challenging his claim.
2. Misconduct: The commissioner found him guilty of misconduct due to unauthorized absenteeism.
3. Rehabilitation Evidence: The applicant lacked evidence of undergoing a rehabilitation program.
4. Nature of Illness: His medical certificate did not specify the nature of his illness.
5. Past Incident: The applicant had previously been barred from the premises for alcohol-related behaviour.

The African People’s Trade Union v. Sasol Steam Plant case highlights the need for employers to differentiate between misconduct and incapacity related to alcohol. Clear policies, fair procedures, and rehabilitation support are essential in addressing these complex workplace challenges.