When cannabis use privately finds itself in the workplace a reflection on Enever v Barloworld equipment

Abstract

In this case note, we disagree with the Labour Appeal Court’s decision in which it found that the dismissal of an employee for testing positive for cannabis consumed in her private home was unfair on account of discrimination. In particular, we hold the view that the finding that the employer could not prove intoxication, was misconceived. We argue that because the employee admitted to being dependent on cannabis, proof of intoxication or impairment was unwarranted. We lean on the literature which evinces that cannabis users suffer from cognitive deficits. We then argue that cognitive decline is no more than an impairment that may affect productivity.

Keywords: {'name': 'Impairment, dependency, addiction, right to privacy, unfair discrimination, workplace policy'}

Authors & affiliations

Carlos Joel Tchawouo Mbiada
Affiliation not supplied

Gideon Joubert
Affiliation not supplied

Lonia Ndlovu
Affiliation not supplied

Deposited references

Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.

Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC)

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.640222

De Vos, P. et al. (2021) South African Constitutional Law in Context. Oxford Cape Town

DOI: 10.17159/1996-2096/2018/v18n1a18

Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others 2011 (8) BCLR 761 (CC)

DOI: 10.1007/s00406-019-00986-2

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd And Others: In Re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd And Others v Smit No And Others 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC).

DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_388_21

DOI: 10.17159/1996-2096/2018/v18n1a9

McGregor, M. (2004). The right to privacy in the workplace: General case law and guidelines for using the internet and e­mail. SA Mercantile Law Journal 638-650

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Prince (Clarke and Others Intervening); National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Rubin; National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Acton 2018 (10) BCLR 1220 (CC); 2018 (6) SA 393 (CC)

Modise, S. (undated) Substance abuse at the workplace. Available at www.labourguide.co.za/general/substance-abuse-a-workplace-problem (Accessed October 30, 2024)

DOI: 10.47348/TSAR/2022/i4a4

NM and Others v Smith and Others (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC)

Okpaluba, C. (2015). Constitutional protection of the right to privacy: The contribution of Chief Justice Langa to the law of search and seizure. Acta Juridica 407-429

Rautenbach, I. M. (2001). The conduct and interests protected by the right to privacy in section 14 of the Constitution. JS Afr. L., 115.

DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106991

S v Jordan and Others (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force and Others as Amici Curiae) 2002 (6) SA 642 (CC)

Shaik-Peremanov, N. (2009). Basel II-the right to privacy: a South African perspective: analysis. SA Mercantile Law Journal, 21(4), 546-554