Triton Express (Pty) Limited v NTM and Others

Mr Cliff Baloyi was employed by Triton Express (Pty) Ltd as a general worker. On 28 January 2019, two of Triton's managers (Mr Motlhabane and Ms van Staden) smelled alcohol on Mr Baloyi's breath at the workplace. A breathalyser test was conducted which confirmed the existence of alcohol in Mr Baloyi's body. Mr Baloyi agreed at the time that he was under the influence of alcohol and was sent home. On 5 February 2019, a disciplinary hearing was conducted where Mr Baloyi was charged with being under the influence of alcohol while on duty. He pleaded guilty to the charge, was found guilty, and was dismissed. Mr Baloyi subsequently challenged the fairness of the dismissal. At the arbitration before the third respondent commissioner, Mr Baloyi denied being under the influence of alcohol but conceded he had pleaded guilty at the disciplinary hearing based on the breathalyser readings indicating he was over the permitted limit.

• Whether the commissioner's finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair was reasonable
• Whether the employer had established on the evidence that Mr Baloyi was guilty of misconduct in being at work under the influence of alcohol
• Whether the standard for review of arbitration awards under Labour Relations Act was met

The award issued by the third respondent under case number GPRFBC54493 handed down on 19 June 2019 was reviewed and set aside. The decision was substituted with a finding that the dismissal of Mr Baloyi was substantively and procedurally fair and his application was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

Where an employee has pleaded guilty to a charge of being under the influence of alcohol at a disciplinary hearing, admitted being under the influence at the time of the incident, and where there is objective evidence supporting the charge (breathalyser test and smell of alcohol), a finding by a commissioner that the employer failed to establish the employee's guilt is so unreasonable that no reasonable arbitrator could reach it and is therefore reviewable. An admission of guilt and a guilty plea are powerful facts that require credible explanation or rebuttal, and an improbable explanation for a guilty plea does not provide a sound basis to disregard the admission.

The court noted that Mr Baloyi's explanation for his guilty plea was that he understood the breathalyser reading indicated he was over the limit. The court observed that it was improbable that Mr Baloyi would have pleaded guilty to being under the influence of alcohol when this was not the case, suggesting that mere regret or a change of mind about the consequences of an admission is insufficient to set it aside. While not essential to the decision, the court also noted that Mr Baloyi conceded he was not influenced or compelled to plead guilty, reinforcing the voluntary nature of the admission.

This case illustrates the application of the reasonableness standard for review of arbitration awards in labour disputes as established in SA Rugby Union v Watson. It demonstrates that where an employee has pleaded guilty at a disciplinary hearing, admitted misconduct at the time, and there is corroborating objective evidence (breathalyser test, smell of alcohol), it would be unreasonable for a commissioner to find that misconduct was not established. The case reinforces the importance of assessing the totality of evidence and the weight to be given to admissions and guilty pleas in disciplinary proceedings. It also shows the Labour Court's willingness to intervene where an arbitrator's findings are fundamentally at odds with the material evidence presented.