ALCOHOL, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND EMPLOYER ACCOUNTABILITY.
Written by Phumzile Eliya
It is 09:00 on a Saturday morning. Your establishment is busy, appointments are back-to-back and clients are arriving. One of your Hairdressers arrives for work. Something is not right.
Their speech is different. They appear unsteady, are struggling to concentrate and their behaviour is unusual.
As an employer, you are not a doctor. You cannot diagnose whether someone is suffering from alcohol dependency, drug dependency or a medical condition.
But you can ask an important workplace question:
Is this person safe to work?
In the Hairdressing, Beauty, Cosmetology and Skincare Industry, employees may work with scissors, razors, electrical equipment, heated styling tools, chemical products and treatments that require concentration and judgement. An employee who is impaired may place themselves, their colleagues and clients at risk.
This is where alcohol and substance abuse can become more than a disciplinary issue.
Employers need to respond fairly, consistently and lawfully, while also taking workplace safety seriously.
Establish the Facts First.
The Employer Does Not Have to Diagnose the Employee
Managers should not try to diagnose alcoholism, addiction or a medical condition.
The employer's immediate responsibility is to manage the workplace safely.
The focus should be on observable facts.
For example:
“The employee was unsteady when walking, had difficulty communicating clearly and struggled to perform the task.”
This is better than:
“The employee was drunk.”
The first statement records what was observed.
The second assumes the cause.
This distinction matters when an employer is dealing with a disciplinary hearing or formal workplace process.
Record what you see. Establish what happened. Do not make medical diagnoses.
What About Alcohol and Drug Testing?
Testing can be an important workplace tool where there are genuine safety concerns.
However, employers should not assume that they can test whenever they wish, or that a positive result automatically justifies dismissal.
Section 7 of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 regulates medical testing of employees. Medical testing is prohibited unless legislation permits or requires it, or where it is justifiable in light of medical facts, employment conditions, social policy, the fair distribution of employee benefits or the inherent requirements of the job.
Employers should therefore have a clear policy before workplace testing becomes necessary.
The policy should explain:
When testing may be legally justified.
Who is authorised to require or approve testing.
How testing will be conducted.
How confidentiality will be protected.
What happens after a positive test.
Whether support or rehabilitation may be considered.
What disciplinary consequences may follow where misconduct is established.
The objective should be to manage a genuine workplace risk, not to test simply because management is suspicious.
A Positive Test Does Not Necessarily Prove Current Impairment
This distinction is important.
In Enever v Barloworld Equipment South Africa, A Division of Barloworld South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2024] ZALAC 12, the Labour Appeal Court considered a workplace cannabis policy in circumstances involving an office-based employee.
The employee had tested positive for cannabis. However, the employer accepted that she was not impaired while performing her duties and that she did not operate dangerous machinery or drive as part of her work.
The Labour Appeal Court found that the policy was irrational and infringed the employee's right to privacy in the circumstances of her office-based work, where there was no evidence that her private cannabis use created a workplace safety risk. The Court also found that the dismissal was automatically unfair in the circumstances.
The case does not mean that employers cannot have substance policies.
It does not mean that cannabis use at work is acceptable.
It does not mean that an employee who is actually impaired while performing safety-sensitive duties must be allowed to continue working.
The lesson is that a workplace rule should have a rational connection to a legitimate workplace purpose and should take the nature of the employee's duties and the actual workplace risk into account.
For an establishment, the actual duties being performed matter.
Safety Rules Must Be Based on the Actual Risk
Employers should avoid creating blanket rules without considering the circumstances in which the rule will operate.
Pikitup (SOC) Limited v SAMWU and Others [2013] ZALAC 33 provides useful guidance on the importance of workplace health and safety measures and the circumstances in which alcohol testing may be connected to those risks.
The case involved workplace health and safety, breathalyser testing and employees working in an environment that included refuse-truck drivers. It considered the relationship between safety requirements, employee privacy and workplace rules.
However, Pikitup did not create a general legal definition of which occupations are “safety-sensitive”.
The important point for employers is to assess the actual workplace risk and put reasonable measures in place to control that risk.
In the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry, this means asking practical questions.
A Hairdresser using scissors, razors, heated equipment and chemical products may present different safety considerations from an employee whose duties are entirely administrative.
A Beauty Therapist performing treatments involving electrical equipment or chemical products may present different risks from a receptionist.
The employer should ask:
What is the actual risk?
What causes the risk?
What reasonable measure can we put in place to control it?
This is stronger than simply copying another industry's policy.
Zero Tolerance Does Not Mean “Dismiss First, Ask Questions Later”
Zero tolerance sounds attractive because it creates certainty.
But disciplinary law does not operate on slogans.
A zero-tolerance approach may be appropriate where the work creates serious safety risks. However, fairness, consistency and the individual circumstances still matter.
The Enever case supports the importance of not applying a blanket rule without considering the actual circumstances and workplace risk.
Consider the difference between these two situations:
An employee uses a substance privately and is not impaired at work.
An employee arrives at an establishment visibly impaired and performs a chemical treatment on a client.
The risks are materially different.
An employer should not automatically treat the two situations as presenting the same workplace risk.
The focus should be on what happened, what the employee's duties were, what risk was created and what workplace process is appropriate.
What Should an Employer Do When an Employee Appears Impaired?
When an employee appears to be impaired, the employer should act carefully and consistently.
Protect the client and workplace first
If there is an immediate safety risk, the employee should not continue with the treatment or task.
The priority is to prevent harm.
Remove the employee from the immediate situation
Where appropriate, move the employee away from clients and colleagues and deal with the matter privately.
There is no need to confront the employee aggressively or embarrass them in front of clients.
Record objective observations
Record what was observed, when it happened, who was present and what safety risk was identified.
Avoid conclusions about medical conditions or dependency.
Follow the workplace policy consistently
If the establishment has an alcohol and substance policy, follow the procedure that applies.
Rules should not be applied differently simply because the employee is a favourite, a long-serving employee or someone management finds difficult.
Give the employee an opportunity to respond
The employee should have an opportunity to explain what happened and respond to the concerns raised.
Consider whether an incapacity issue may be involved
Where the facts indicate possible alcohol or substance dependency, the employer should consider whether the matter may involve incapacity or require support and rehabilitation.
This does not mean that every case of suspected substance use automatically becomes an incapacity matter. The facts must first be established and the appropriate process determined.
Obtain labour-relations advice where necessary
Employers should consider obtaining appropriate labour-relations advice where the matter involves dismissal, workplace testing, possible dependency, discrimination, medical information or uncertainty about the appropriate process.
Employee dignity should remain intact throughout the process.
Being accused of being intoxicated is serious. Humiliating the employee does not make the process more effective.
Build the Policy Before You Need It
A better approach is to establish expectations from the beginning.
Your workplace policy should clearly address:
Alcohol and substance use at work.
Reporting for duty while impaired.
Consumption of alcohol during working hours.
Prescription medication that may affect safe performance.
When workplace testing may be legally justified.
How suspected impairment will be managed.
Confidentiality of medical and testing information.
Possible support or rehabilitation.
Disciplinary consequences for proven misconduct.
Employees should be made aware of these standards during onboarding and should understand that workplace safety applies to everyone.
A Practical Checklist for Establishment Owners
Ask yourself:
Do we have a written alcohol and substance policy?
Do our employees know what “fit for work” means?
Have we explained the policy during onboarding?
Do we have a procedure for dealing with suspected impairment?
Does our policy take the actual risks of our establishment into account?
Do we know when testing may legally be justified?
Do managers know how to record objective observations?
Do we distinguish between misconduct and possible dependency or incapacity?
Do we apply our rules consistently?
Do we protect the dignity and confidentiality of employees during the process?
If the answer to several of these questions is “no”, it may be time to review your workplace arrangements.
Final Thoughts: Safety Is Everyone's Responsibility
The Hairdressing, Beauty, Cosmetology and Skincare Industry is a people business.
Clients trust our employees with their hair, their skin, their appearance and, in many treatments, their physical wellbeing.
That trust should never be taken lightly.
When an employee arrives at work impaired, the issue is not simply whether they have broken a rule. The employer has to consider the safety of the employee, their colleagues and the clients who have placed themselves in the care of the establishment.
At the same time, an employee struggling with alcohol or substance dependency should not automatically be labelled as a “bad employee”. There may be a genuine incapacity issue that requires a different response.
Sometimes the appropriate response will be disciplinary action.
Sometimes it may require incapacity management or support.
Sometimes the immediate priority will simply be removing a safety risk and establishing the facts.
The key is establishing the facts and determining the appropriate workplace process before deciding what action to take.
For employers in the Hairdressing, Cosmetology, Beauty and Skincare Industry, the standard should be straightforward:
No employee should be permitted to put themselves, their colleagues or their clients at unnecessary risk.
A properly managed alcohol and substance policy does more than protect the employer.
It protects the employee.
It protects the client.
It protects the establishment.
And ultimately, it protects the reputation and professionalism of the industry we work in.
