- May 3
- 3 min read

A Landmark Victory for Privacy: The Enever vs Barloworld Cannabis Case

In a world where the lines between personal freedom and workplace policies often blur, the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) case of Bernadette Enever vs Barloworld Equipment has set a significant precedent. This case has sparked a debate on the overreach of company policies into an employee’s private life, specifically concerning the use of cannabis.

Importantly, the LAC stressed that its findings in this matter were based on core principles such as the fact that Enever had an office job, was not impaired and did not operate dangerous equipment or vehicles.

The principle the LAC took issue with, was that a blanket zero tolerance stance of the Company was not acceptable and that each case should be based on its own merit.

The Court added that impairment should be a factor and that a similar framework should be developed to that of addressing evidence in alcohol matters – slurred speech, impaired co-ordination, loudness and the like.

The Battle Begins

Bernadette Enever, an employee at Barloworld Equipment, found herself at the centre of a legal storm when she was dismissed for repeatedly testing positive for cannabis.

The company, which had a zero-tolerance Alcohol and Substance Abuse policy, based its decision solely on the positive cannabis test, without any evidence of impairment at work.

Enever, who used cannabis for severe anxiety, refused to stop using it, claiming it was her right and that she was not impaired at work.

She brought two claims against Barloworld - one for automatically unfair dismissal under the Labour Relations Act (LRA), and the other for discrimination under the Employment Equity Act (EEA).

The Labour Court’s Verdict

The Labour Court upheld Barloworld’s decision, stating that the company had a clear policy, implemented it consistently, and there was no differentiation on a prohibited ground.

The court also held that the Prince case, which decriminalized the private use of cannabis, did not impact the workplace, making a zero-tolerance policy justifiable.

The Turning Tide: The Labour Appeal Court’s Ruling

In April 2024, the Labour Appeal Court overturned the Labour Court’s decision by ruling that Barloworld’s decision to fire Enever based solely on a positive cannabis test, without evidence of impairment, was an overbroad, unwarranted, and unjustifiable invasion of her right to privacy.

The court emphasized the importance of the right to privacy and its link to human dignity. It stated that the use of a blood test alone, without proof of impairment on the work premises, was a violation of Enever’s dignity and privacy.

The court also noted that a mere positive test for cannabis, which can remain in a person’s system for many days, does not indicate whether they are impaired from carrying out their duties.

The Implications

This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications for workplace policies.

It questions the rationality of a zero-tolerance policy against personal cannabis use by employees in their own homes and the maintenance of safety at the workplace.

It also opens the door for a similar jurisprudence on the known symptoms of cannabis and their effect on the duties of the employee to develop.

The court’s decision to award Enever 24 month’s compensation is a reminder that company policies should not infringe on an employee’s right to privacy and should be proportionate to the offense.

It also underscores the need for companies to consider the nature of the job, the work environment, and the substances policy when dealing with such cases.

By John Botha