Safety benefits of urine sampling outweigh privacy concerns: FWC

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ruled that an employer’s drug testing regime, which utilises a combination of random oral fluid and urine sampling, is not unjust or unreasonable.


Port Kembla Coal Terminal Limited (PKCT Limited) initially purported to introduce a drug testing regime involving urine sampling only. However, following opposition from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), PKCT Limited agreed to utilise oral fluid sampling in addition to urine sampling. The employer’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Standard (AOD Standard) accordingly adopted a combination of random oral fluid and urine testing methods.


The CFMEU pointed out the limitations of urine sampling in detecting recent drug use, and argued that the use of urine sampling interfered with employees’ privacy. The union stressed that urine sampling detected an employee’s historical use of drugs, which may not necessarily impact on the employees’ safety performance.


PKCT Limited argued that the combined and random use of both methods overcame the limitations of the individual testing methods. Further, the employer argued the selection of a random method provided greater deterrence for employees as it would make it more difficult for workers to circumvent a positive result.


The FWC accepted that it had preferred oral fluid sampling over urine sampling in earlier cases because of the limitations of urine sampling. However, the Commission noted that scientific and technological developments in the area, as well as changing social circumstances, also needed to be taken into account.


Commissioner Cambridge rejected the argument that detection of an employee’s historical drug use was an unreasonable intrusion into the employee’s private life if the metabolite of the drug detected was above the cut-off levels set out in AS/NZS 4308:2008. There was evidence that detection of a drug above the cut-off level in the standard could impact on a person’s capacity to perform work-related functions, the Commissioner said.

“In summary, detection of cannabis metabolites and other drugs at or above the immunoassay screening cut-off levels established by Table 1 of AS/NZS 4308:2008 can logically be translated into a safety risk that requires action. The capacity for such detection should not be avoided upon the erroneous proposition that an innocent worker may be subjected to an unreasonable intrusion into their private lives. Detection of the drug at or above the cut-off level expunges innocence.”

While the Commissioner admitted that oral fluid sampling would be the preferred method where a single method was being adopted, he held that a combination of both methods provided the best of both worlds and thus did not amount to unreasonable action.


Commisioner Cambridge further acknowledged that urine sampling involved more discomfort for workers than oral fluid sampling. However, he held that such discomfort has to be balanced against the need to prevent injuries at work.

“A detailed analysis of the competing positions has led me to conclude that the benefits that would be obtained by the adoption of both methods of sampling in random combination significantly outweigh any privacy detriments that could be identified”, Commisioner Cambridge decided.

The FWC also commended PKCT Limited for providing voluntary self testing and access to rehabilitation, as well as for not making disciplinary action the automatic consequence of a positive result. The Commission did suggest, however, that PKCT Limited’s AOD Standard should more expansively articulate its confidentiality arrangements in respect of the drug testing results.


Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Limited [2015] FWC 2384


“This article originally appeared on CCH Australia and is reproduced with permission”

Contact Us

Zenergy News

Directors' duties for psych risks unpacked in new report
April 23, 2025
The WHS obligations of company directors include taking reasonable steps to understand the psychological hazards in their workplaces, and this is a "personal" prosecutable duty, a new guide for directors warns. Directors' obligations include establishing that their organisations and their management "are equipped with appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise these risks to the extent that is reasonably practicable", the guide by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and law firm King & Wood Mallesons says. Most of any organisation's work to address psychosocial hazards will be "driven by management", given the complexity of the risks and the deep operational knowledge required to guide action, it says. "The board plays a supporting role in constructively challenging these efforts and maintaining oversight of how effective psychosocial risk management contributes to broader organisational culture and leadership." Under Australia's national model WHS laws – adopted by all jurisdictions other than Victoria, which has similar legislation – officers have a duty to exercise due diligence to confirm their organisation is meeting its WHS obligations. (See section 27 of NSW's version of the laws, for example.) This duty is a "personal duty, meaning [officers] can be prosecuted for failing to meet their due diligence obligations", the guide says. "Prosecution typically requires proof that the officer failed to take reasonable steps to comply with their duty, assessed in the context of the organisation's overall safety and health management system," it says. These due diligence obligations apply to paid directors, and are "recommended" for volunteer directors, who can be prosecuted in limited circumstances. "While non-executive directors have not been the focus of WHS regulators to date, this can change, and regulatory expectations are rising," the guide notes. According to the 12-page document , company boards and governance play a crucial role in ensuring psychosocial risks are managed effectively. Directors must oversee management's efforts at identifying and implementing control measures, set expectations and confirm that the necessary frameworks are in place. "This includes seeking information, reviewing board reports, assessing organisational culture, and challenging management where needed to strengthen risk controls," the guide says. Examples of how boards should address the workplace factors that create psychosocial risks include: Overseeing how managers monitor the risks associated with work design by drawing on complaints data, employee surveys, and absence and turnover rates, and engaging regularly with management to assess risks and evaluate measures; Confirming that management is complying with the positive duty to eliminate workplace sexual harassment, and obtaining regular reports on key behavioural risks involving code of conduct breaches and harassment cases; Setting expectations for management to provide workers with practical assistance and timely consultation in the event of organisational change and restructures, which can create significant stress; Engaging with management to review how it is addressing remote work risks, and ensuring there they have a clear policy to guide them in determining when remote arrangements are appropriate; and Overseeing how HR and performance management processes are managed, and confirming that investigation procedures are fair, workers have access to appropriate support, and outcomes are handled as consistently as possible. Governing WHS Psychosocial Risks: A primer for directors, by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and King & Wood Mallesons, April 2025 This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au.
April 7, 2025
Zenergy recently hosted Women in Safety, a special networking event dedicated to fostering collaboration in the health, safety, and wellbeing sector. Held on March 20, 2025, at The Winery, Surry Hills, this event provided a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere where professionals gathered to exchange insights, share experiences, and build meaningful connections. With attendees from diverse industries—including construction, logistics, corporate sectors, and more—the event highlighted the vital role of women in shaping safer workplaces across Australia.
March 25, 2025
Podcasts have become a dominant force in the world of media, revolutionising how we consume information and entertainment and the WHS, Environment & Sustainability is no different! As the podcast industry continues to expand, listeners are discovering a wealth of benefits, from educational insights to fostering community connections. In this article, we share some of the leading podcasts and why they’ve become a growing part of modern WHS, Environment & Sustainability consumption. Here are some of the leading podcasts that every WHS, Environmental, and Sustainability professional should tune into:
March 24, 2025
Colin Hansen, WHS Director John Holland - M7M12 Project
March 3, 2025
Zenergy invites you to be part of the prestigious 2025 Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards (AWHSA) —a national platform dedicated to recognising outstanding achievements in workplace health and safety. These awards celebrate individuals and organisations that are making a real impact in fostering safer, healthier work environments.
February 28, 2025
Australia has enacted mandatory sustainability reporting requirements, effective from 1 January 2025, through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024. These regulations mandate that large entities disclose climate-related financial information as part of their annual reporting obligations.
More Posts