City of Cape Town loses bid to overturn officer's reinstatement after cannabis test

The Labour Court has rejected the City of Cape Town's attempt to overturn an arbitration award that reinstated a learner law enforcement officer dismissed for testing positive for cannabis.

In a ruling delivered on Thursday, the court affirmed the arbitration decision made by the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC), determining that the dismissal of Keegan Mantis was substantively unfair.

Mantis, represented by the South African Municipal Workers' Union (SAMWU), was employed as a learner law enforcement officer in the City’s Law Enforcement Department. His position was classified as high risk, as officers may be required to carry firearms, drive official vehicles, and respond to emergencies.

In February 2023, Mantis tested positive for cannabis during a random workplace drug test. He was subsequently charged with misconduct for breaching the City’s Substance Abuse System and Procedure, which enforces a zero-tolerance approach toward employees who test positive for drugs or alcohol while on duty.

Following a disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed on October 31, 2023. He later challenged his dismissal through arbitration at the SALGBC.

At arbitration, Mantis pleaded guilty to failing the drug test. The central issue was whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for a first offence.

The appointed arbitrator found that while the City had adopted a zero-tolerance policy, such a policy could not override legal principles requiring proportionality. Relying on a prior Labour Appeal Court decision, the arbitrator held that a positive cannabis test does not automatically prove intoxication or impairment.

The arbitrator noted that the City led no evidence showing that Mantis was intoxicated or unable to perform his duties on the day of the test. It was also common cause that he was not required to carry a firearm, drive a vehicle, or perform hazardous tasks at the time.

The arbitrator concluded that dismissal for a first offence was too harsh and ordered Mantis’ reinstatement in September 2024, along with back pay of more than R197,000.

Disappointed, the City approached the Labour Court, arguing that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity and ignored material evidence. It contended that the offence was dismissible even as a first offence, given the high-risk nature of law enforcement work, and that the arbitrator’s decision was one that no reasonable decision-maker could reach.

The court, however, emphasised the distinction between an appeal and a review. Acting Judge May reiterated that an arbitration award can only be set aside if both the reasoning and the outcome are unreasonable.

The judge further noted that arbitrators must consider the totality of the circumstances when assessing sanction, including the seriousness of the rule breached, the harm caused, and whether dismissal is a measure of last resort.

The court found that the arbitrator properly considered the evidence, understood the nature of the dispute, and applied the relevant legal principles. Although the judge remarked that the arbitrator “may have incorrectly found that the risk was no longer high,” this did not amount to a reviewable defect.

“There was no material malfunctioning,” the court held, concluding that the award was “unassailable.”

The review application was dismissed, with each party ordered to pay its own costs.

Because the review proceedings delayed Mantis’ return to work, the court ordered that he report for duty on March 2, 2026. The City was further directed to pay him full back pay for the period from October 2023 to March 2026, amounting to more than R553,000 by March 31, 2026.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus