Setting policies and procedures for the effective management of drugs and alcohol in the workplace is important, particularly for safety critical industries.
The overarching goal of such policies and procedures is to ensure employees do not show up for work in an impaired state and place themselves, other employees or their employer’s business at risk. Most drug and alcohol policies provide employers with recourses in the event that an employee fails a drug or alcohol test, but questions can arise about the seriousness of a transgression, the surrounding circumstances and the severity with which an employer should respond.
These issues were recently examined by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in its decision of Jurgen Rust v Farstad Shipping (India Pacific) Pty Ltd T/A Farstad [2017] FWC 3426, where a sea captain with 16 years’ service was dismissed following a random drug and alcohol screening. In October 2016, the captain was tested twice in a 30 minute period and on each occasion his blood alcohol concentration was over the employer’s acceptable limit.
The employer considered this transgression to be serious misconduct and, after following a “show cause” process, terminated the captain’s employment.
The captain made an application to the FWC claiming that his dismissal was unfair, in large part, because his consumption of alcohol the night before the test was due to his feelings about an unresolved work incident in 2014.
In 2014, an investigation had been launched following allegations that the captain made inappropriate comments during a safety committee meeting. The captain denied making the remarks but the investigation found the allegations to be substantiated.
The captain was suspended for 10 weeks whilst the investigation was being conducted. When his suspension was lifted, he was required to work with the same crew involved in the investigation and tension within the group remained. Whilst the captain was invited to write to the general manager about his concerns that the matter remained unresolved, his correspondence went unanswered.
In the FWC proceedings, the captain gave evidence that, on the day before the alcohol test, he ran into a crew member who had been involved in the 2014 incident. As a result of that chance meeting, and the captain’s feelings that the incident remained unresolved, the captain became anxious and depressed. In the course of the afternoon and evening of that day, the captain consumed 10 full strength beers.
The captain claimed that his employer’s failure to adequately resolve the incident in 2014 and properly inform him of its decisions lead him to become anxious and drink in an effort to calm himself down.
In response, the captain’s employer claimed that it had clear policies and procedures regarding drugs, alcohol and testing, the captain knew of these policies and procedures, and was in clear breach of them. The employer argued that the captain’s conduct was a serious safety concern and its dismissal of him was warranted.
The FWC found that, while the captain’s breach of the policy was a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal itself was harsh because:
Having taken such factors into account, the FWC held that the employer should have explored other disciplinary options, which were permitted under its policies. The FWC said that the employer’s decision was not binary – to terminate or not to terminate – but it had a range of options open to it that it did not consider.
Whilst not condoning the captain’s conduct, the FWC held that the captain’s dismissal was unfair.
This case contains three key lessons for employers:
Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
