Safety specialist reasonably advised drug test of worker

A worker claiming he accidentally ate cannabis cookies before failing a workplace drug test has failed to overturn his dismissal. He argued his employer unreasonably subjected him to the test when he wasn’t displaying any behaviour or symptoms of intoxication or impairment.


Fair Work Commissioner Alana Matheson accepted the employer’s submission that his managers had sufficient concerns about his performance and behaviour to request he take a test.


In Sydney, the Commissioner heard that early this year, Wilmar Sugar Pty Ltd stood the IT project manager down over allegations he had appeared to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol while at work.


She heard two of his colleagues told the employer that on one afternoon they witnessed him slurring his speech, swaying, talking with his eyes closed and repeating himself, making one of the colleagues feel unsafe.



Wilmar found there wasn’t enough evidence to take any disciplinary action against him, but upon his return to work he was subjected to a drug and alcohol test that returned a result of 967ug/L for cannabinoids.

This was 19 times higher than the cut-off level prescribed by the employer’s “fit for duty procedure” and the worker was sacked.

He claimed unfair dismissal, telling the FWC the result came as a shock and he subsequently learned that prior to the test, he unknowingly ate cookies containing cannabis that his partner brought home from a party.


He argued the dismissal was unfair because the test detected residual trace elements of something he unintentionally consumed and he was not “under the influence” at the time.


He was approached upon his return to work and targeted for “reasonable cause” testing under the procedure, despite not showing any symptoms or behaviour to suggest he was intoxicated or impaired, he claimed.



The employer’s actions were unreasonably based on an “unsubstantiated assumption” that he had been intoxicated at work in April, he said.

Wilmar told the FWC its fit-for-duty requirements, which the worker was dismissed for breaching, weren’t focused on the perceived impairment of a worker but on what cut-off levels were acceptable to the business.

It said its managers held reasonable concerns over the worker’s behaviour, attendance and performance leading up to its request that he take a drug and alcohol test, to ensure the safety of everyone in his team.


The test had been recommended by its head of safety, to ensure it was safe for him to return to work, it said.


“I accept that [these managers] held concerns for the safety and welfare of the [worker] and others in the workplace, had a duty of care under work health and safety laws and acted on the recommendation of [Wilmar’s] health and safety specialist in requesting the reasonable cause testing,” Commissioner Matheson said.


Their concerns met the criteria for requesting staff to undertake reasonable cause testing under the fit-for-duty procedure, she found in dismissing the worker’s case.


She found the worker’s claim that he unintentionally consumed cannabis was “questionable” and irrelevant “to an assessment of [his] failure to comply with the fit-for-duty procedure as a reason for dismissal”.



The Commissioner referred to Sydney Trains v Gary Hilder [2020] FWCFB1373, where an FWC full bench upheld the reinstatement of a safety-critical rail worker who failed a cannabis test (see related article), but stressed it would place employers in an “impossible position” if they had to demonstrate “intentionality” to enforce workplace safety policies.

Masters v Wilmar Sugar Pty Ltd T/A Wilmar Sugar [2021] FWC 6230 (28 October 2021)


This article was produced and originally posted by OHS Alert – Premium news and analysis for Australian workplace safety and workers’ compensation professionals.

TAG :- Drug Test, Drug Testing, Fwc

Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: