Resources: Blog

Employee who faked test results abandons hearing

Blog
|

Running Man

Generally speaking, most matters in the Fair Work Commission run in a “no costs” jurisdiction. This means that parties bringing or responding to applications in the Commission will be responsible for their own costs - no matter who is successful. However, the Commission does have some discretion to order costs in exceptional circumstances. One such rare decision was handed down last week in G v Toll Holdings Ltd [2016] FWC 2790.

Generally speaking, most matters in the Fair Work Commission run in a “no costs” jurisdiction. This means that parties bringing or responding to applications in the Commission will be responsible for their own costs - no matter who is successful. However, the Commission does have some discretion to order costs in exceptional circumstances. One such rare decision was handed down last week in G v Toll Holdings Ltd [2016] FWC 2790.

Mr G was a Yard Truck Driver for Toll Holdings Ltd (Toll). Toll conducted drug testing in accordance with a Drug and Alcohol Policy. In June 2015, Mr G tested positive for drugs at work after taking a saliva test, and his employment was terminated as a result.

Prior to his dismissal, Mr G told Toll that immediately following the saliva test at work, he had gone to his doctor and taken a urine test that was sent off for processing. That test, he said, returned a negative result and showed that he had no drugs in his system.

Mr G maintained this version of events when giving evidence under oath and in his sworn witness statement, to which he attached the urine test results.

At the hearing of this matter, the doctor who administered the urine drug test was called to give evidence. He said that the test results attached to Mr G’s witness statement were not the test results he had given to Mr G and it was apparent that the document relied upon by Mr G had been manipulated. The doctor confirmed that the original test results were positive not negative.

After this evidence, the hearing adjourned briefly and when it can time to recommence, Mr G could not be located. In the words of the Commissioner, Mr G “did a runner.”

Toll then made a costs application pursuant to s611(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on the basis that Mr G had manufactured the test results on which he was seeking to rely and his entire claim was based on a lie.

The Commissioner found in favour of Toll and ordered Mr G to pay all Toll’s costs to the tune of $18,618.31. The Commissioner found that Mr G’s application for relief from unfair dismissal was without reasonable cause, had no reasonable prospects of success and was vexatious.

The lessons to take away from this unusual case are that employers should not be afraid to defend unfair dismissal matters and that former employees should think carefully before making a claim alleging they were unfairly dismissed.

 

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.

 

Similar articles

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

Commission rejects constructive dismissal claim after finding performance review process did not force employee to resign

Full force denied

For an employee to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, they must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. In some instances, a resignation can be a “dismissal”, when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct. This is referred to as a “constructive dismissal”.

Read more...

FWC rejects Applicants’ claim to access investigation documents

Privileged

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a broad power under section 590 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) to “inform itself in relation to any manner before it in such manner as it considers appropriate”. Under this general power, the FWC may inform itself by requiring the production of documents or records to the FWC (such as all documents or records relating to a dismissal process).

Read more...

Commission orders employer to pay compensation as a result of its procedurally unfair disciplinary process

Procedurally disastrous

When investigating allegations of misconduct against an employee in the workplace, employers must ensure that any ensuing disciplinary process is kept distinct from and separate to from the investigation.

Read more...

The importance of WHS refresher training

Not a “one and done” thing

It is an expected and necessary part of work health and safety (WHS) plans that all new workers receive relevant WHS training.

Read more...

Casual Terms Award Review 2021

NEWS UPDATE

In March 2021, the casual employment amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) introduced a new statutory definition of “casual employee” and an entitlement to casual conversion as one of the National Employment Standards (NES).

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.