In safety-critical workplaces, it is essential that employers not only have in place robust safety standards and policies but also that they regularly enforce them and penalise infractions appropriately.
In the recent decision of Woodgate v Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail [2024] FWC 3165, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) dismissed an application for unfair dismissal finding that an employee’s non-compliance with a drug and alcohol policy in a high-risk work environment amounted to a valid reason for dismissal.
The employee had been employed with Queensland Rail Transit Authority T/A Queensland Rail (the Employer) for sixteen years as a Protection Officer. He was responsible for identifying and mitigating risks for other railway workers in the dangerous work environment.
In March 2024, the employee consumed “a couple of alcoholic beverages and some cocaine” approximately fourteen hours before commencing a shift. During his shift, the employee incorrectly placed a ‘red board’ stop sign within a Rail Corridor danger zone and exposed himself and other workers to a “live track”. The Employer submitted that if a train had been operating, the consequences could have been fatal for the employee.
As a result of the mistake, the employee undertook a drug and alcohol test (during which he did not self-declare his cocaine use) and returned a not-negative result for cocaine.
The Employer’s investigation into the incident found that the employee had seriously breached the Employer’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Management Policy (AOD Policy) and Code of Conduct. The AOD Policy noted that being above the ‘prescribed limit’ (which is zero for illicit drug use) breached the fundamental safety requirements reflected in the Code of Conduct.
Ultimately, the Employer dismissed the employee for this breach.
The employee lodged an unfair dismissal application arguing that the “mere presence of cocaine in his body does not denote a sound, defensible and well-founded reason for dismissal” and that the termination was disproportionate to the gravity of the conduct.
The employee submitted that he “did not know what else he could have done or said to save his job” and that he had been truthful, expressed remorse throughout and complied with the Employer’s drug and alcohol management procedure.
The Employer disagreed and argued that the employee’s consumption of cocaine on the same day that he knew he was rostered to work was very serious given his role as a Protection Officer and that his failure to comply with safety standards exposed employees to an unnecessary risk of injury and death.
The Employer further argued that termination had been the consistent outcome for similar matters relating to the same conduct and that any lesser penalty would send the wrong message to other employees.
In considering the submissions of both parties, the FWC was satisfied that there was a valid reason for dismissal for reasons including that:
The FWC also noted that the internal investigation and dismissal process by the Employer was satisfactory and remained uncontested by the employee.
The FWC then turned to whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. It considered several mitigating factors, including that the employee:
However, the FWC ultimately found that the degree of harshness based on these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the breach that had occurred, especially given the high-risk environment of the workplace.
The FWC therefore dismissed the application and upheld the dismissal.
This case is an example of an effective internal drug and alcohol management procedure and dismissal process that was supported by a robust drug and alcohol policy to minimise risks in a dangerous workplace.
The FWC has consistently shown support to employers that implement a zero tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use in the workplace and follow through with appropriate disciplinary action for employees who do not comply with these requirements, particularly in high-risk work environments.
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.
