Supreme Court dismissed union leader's appeal for reinstatement due to severe breach of duty and intoxication. Union protections do not shield from justified sanctions. Court rejected claim of procedural errors regarding evidence. Union leader cannot use special protections against valid termination. Court upheld employer's right to sanction for intoxication. Union leader failed to prove sobriety after delay. Special protections apply only to those without severe breaches.

The Supreme Court dismissed the union leader's cassation appeal seeking reinstatement after his employment contract was terminated for cause. The lower courts found that the employee's intoxication at work, confirmed by breathalyzer tests and witness testimony, constituted a severe breach of his basic duties. The Court rejected the claim that the employer failed to conduct a blood test or that the union leader's special protections should override these findings. The decision established that union leaders cannot use enhanced job security guarantees as a shield against justified sanctions for serious misconduct.