In this matter, a general worker was dismissed after being accused of working under the influence of alcohol.
On the same day, the employee was examined by the company’s doctor — and later by another independent medical practitioner — both of whom issued medical certificates booking him off sick. Neither doctor detected any signs of intoxication.

The CCMA found that the dismissal was substantively unfair. The employer, Unilec SA, challenged this finding through a review application, alleging that the commissioner had ignored critical evidence and reached an unreasonable conclusion.
The Labour Court, however, dismissed the review and upheld the CCMA award.

The Labour Court highlighted several important considerations for employers:

1. Limited Scope of Review:
   A review under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act is not a rehearing of the case. It is confined to determining whether the commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision-maker could reach, applying the Sidumo
2. Evidence Must Support Findings:
   The commissioner’s conclusion — that the employee was ill and not intoxicated — was based on credible evidence presented during arbitration.
3. No New Evidence on Review:
   Attempts by the employer to introduce new documentation at the review stage were impermissible. The Court only considers what was before the commissioner at the time of arbitration.
4. Absence of Proof:
   There was no objective proof of intoxication — no breathalyser results, no medical evidence — only an invoice suggesting a test had been conducted. This fell short of proving the allegation.