Workplace Substance Policies: Legal Compliance in the Post-Cannabis Era

The decriminalisation of private cannabis use has fundamentally altered South Africa's employment law landscape, forcing businesses to reassess their workplace substance policies. Recent Labour Court decisions, particularly Enever v Barloworld, have established clear parameters for how employers must balance constitutional rights with workplace safety requirements.

Constitutional Rights Meet Workplace Reality

Since the Constitutional Court's Prince decision decriminalised private adult cannabis use, employers can no longer rely on blanket zero-tolerance policies without legal risk. The Labour Court has consistently held that constitutional rights to privacy and dignity extend into employment relationships, requiring employers to demonstrate rational connections between substance policies and legitimate business interests.

The Enever v Barloworld judgement exemplifies this shift, establishing that employers must justify restrictive policies with evidence rather than assumptions about substance use risks.

Evidence-Based Approach Required

Courts will generally require proof of actual workplace impairment rather than accepting positive test results as sufficient grounds. This evidence-based approach recognises that substance presence in an employee's system doesn't necessarily indicate current intoxication or job performance issues.

Employers must demonstrate how specific conduct affects work performance, creates safety risks, or breaches inherent job requirements. Disciplinary action based solely on positive drug tests, without evidence of workplace impact, increasingly faces successful legal challenges.

Risk-Proportionate Policies

The Labour Court applies an inherent job requirements test, meaning substance policies must reflect actual workplace risks. Safety-critical positions in mining, transportation, or heavy machinery operation may justify stricter controls than administrative roles.

Blanket policies applied uniformly across all employees, regardless of their specific duties and associated risks, are vulnerable to unfair discrimination claims. Employers must tailor substance policies to reflect genuine risk profiles of different positions within their organisations.

Consistency and Non-Discrimination

Employment equity legislation requires consistent policy application across all employee categories. Courts scrutinise cases where substance policies appear to be selectively enforced or disproportionately impact specific demographic groups.

Policies treating traditional substances differently from alcohol, or applied inconsistently across management levels, face heightened judicial scrutiny for potential discriminatory impact.

Procedural Compliance Essential

Even where substantive grounds for discipline exist, employers must follow proper procedures. The Labour Court emphasises natural justice principles, requiring employees to receive adequate notice of charges, opportunities to respond, and fair hearings before disciplinary action.

Summary dismissals based on positive test results, without affording employees procedural rights, consistently fail in labour dispute proceedings.

Alternative Measures Favoured

Courts increasingly favour rehabilitation and support measures over immediate dismissal, particularly where substance use appears linked to medical conditions or addiction. Employers demonstrating efforts to assist employees through counselling, treatment referrals, or adjusted duties receive more favourable judicial consideration.

This approach aligns with disability accommodation requirements and demonstrates good faith employment practices that courts value in dispute resolution.

Clear Communication Standards

Workplace policies must be clearly documented, communicated, and understood by all employees. Vague or ambiguous substance use rules, particularly regarding off-duty conduct, will not withstand legal challenge if employees lack proper notice of expectations and consequences.

Regular policy reviews and employee training sessions help ensure compliance with evolving legal standards and reduce dispute risks.

Individual Assessment Mandatory

The Labour Court rejects mechanistic policy application, requiring case-by-case assessment considering employee roles, disciplinary history, incident circumstances, and actual business impact. This individualised approach ensures proportionate responses and prevents unfair treatment.

Universal disciplinary responses without considering specific circumstances increasingly result in successful reinstatement applications and compensation awards.

Business Risk Management

Non-compliant substance policies expose employers to significant legal and financial risks. Successful unfair dismissal claims can result in reinstatement orders, compensation awards up to 24 months' salary, and reputational damage.

Additionally, discriminatory policies may trigger Employment Equity Act violations, attracting regulatory penalties and compliance directions.

Implementation Recommendations

Businesses should immediately review existing substance policies for constitutional compliance and legal alignment. Key action items include:

• Policy Audit: Assess current policies against Labour Court precedents, focusing on constitutional rights integration and job-specific risk analysis.

  
  

• Risk Assessment: Conduct role-specific evaluations to determine appropriate substance policy applications across different positions and departments.

  
  

• Training Investment: Implement supervisor training on impairment recognition, focusing on observable performance indicators rather than testing dependence.

• Support Systems: Establish employee assistance programmes offering counselling and rehabilitation services as alternatives to disciplinary action.

• Documentation Standards: Ensure all policies are clearly written, regularly communicated, and consistently applied across the organisation.

• Legal Review: Engage employment law specialists to validate policy compliance and provide ongoing guidance on evolving jurisprudence.

Competitive Advantage Through Compliance

Forward-thinking employers are discovering that balanced, rights-respecting substance policies create competitive advantages in talent markets. Organisations demonstrating constitutional compliance and employee support often experience improved staff retention, reduced legal disputes, and enhanced employer branding.

Companies adapting early to these legal developments position themselves favourably against competitors still relying on outdated zero-tolerance approaches vulnerable to successful legal challenges.

The post-cannabis legal landscape requires sophisticated policy approaches balancing employee rights with legitimate business interests. Employers investing in compliant, evidence-based substance policies will minimise legal exposure while maintaining productive, safe workplaces in South Africa's evolving employment law environment.

Join us at the Annual Labour Law Update. This year's theme is Labour Law at the Crossroads: Adapting to Change in an Uncertain Economy and with Massive Labour Law Reform Impacting Case Law. What you'll gain:

• Master the Digital Transformation of Labour Law in 2025

• 200+ Labour Law Cases Unpacked by Jonathan Goldberg

• Critical Updates on Upcoming Legislation & NEDLAC Amendments

• Navigate Workplace Challenges from the Digital Era to Discrimination Laws

Register Now!

View our upcoming events: Upcoming Events, like like Diversity and Inclusion, Employment Equity with PoE, or Effective Strike Management.

*All workshops are offered as customised in-house training that can be presented virtually or on-site.

"Global Business Solutions (GBS)—Your Partner in Strategic HR Compliance"