Drug Policies in the Workplace: Sydney Trains v Goodsell (2024)

Balancing Zero-Tolerance Drug Policies with Fairness in the Workplace: Insights from Sydney Trains v Goodsell

Senior Associate, Kimberly Jones, discussed insights from the recent case of Sydney Trains v Reece Goodsell [2024].

The recent Full Bench decision of the Fair Work Commission in Sydney Trains v Reece Goodsell [2024][1] considers the dismissal of an employee for breaching a zero-tolerance drug policy, despite no evidence of impairment while on duty.  The case was an unsuccessful appeal of an earlier 2023 decision[2].

The case highlights the need to balance strict policy enforcement with fairness to employees, including proper consideration of mitigating factors before making termination decisions.

Background

Mr Goodsell was a long-term employee with Sydney Trains. He was dismissed after testing positive for a cocaine metabolite during a random drug test conducted on his first day back after a period of annual leave.

Sydney Trains maintained a strict Drug and Alcohol Policy, which defined a “drug-free” workplace as one where employees do not exceed the cut-off levels stipulated in the Australian/New Zealand Standard for drug testing. The policy focused on the presence of drugs rather than actual impairment.

Despite his long service and unblemished record, Mr Goodsell was dismissed for breaching this zero-tolerance policy.

Sydney Trains argued that the policy was essential to ensuring safety in a high-risk environment where employees’ duties could directly impact public safety. However, Mr. Goodsell asserted that his drug use was a one-time event during his leave and that he was not impaired when he returned to work.

Findings

The Full Bench upheld that the existence of a positive drug test alone could constitute a valid reason for dismissal, particularly in a safety-critical environment like Sydney Trains. The Commission noted that Sydney Trains’ policy, which mandates a drug-free workplace, was reasonable and lawful given the nature of the work involved.

According to the Commission, testing for the presence of drugs rather than impairment was justified since determining impairment on-site in real-time is often impractical.

However, the Commission found and upheld on appeal, that while there was a valid reason for dismissal based on policy breach, the dismissal was ultimately deemed unfair.

The Commission emphasised that a decision to dismiss must consider not only the breach but also mitigating factors. In Mr. Goodsell’s case, his 26 years of exemplary service, the lack of evidence that he was impaired at work, and his honest admission during the investigation were significant mitigating factors.

Consequently, the Commission ordered Mr Goodsell’s reinstatement.

Key Takeaways and Tips for Employers

1. Employers should ensure that their drug and alcohol policies are clearly defined, communicated, and consistently enforced.
2. Even in safety-sensitive industries, a zero-tolerance policy must be balanced with considerations of fairness. Employers should assess factors such as the employee’s role, their past performance, and the specific circumstances surrounding the breach.
3. The presence of a valid reason for dismissal does not automatically mean that a dismissal is fair. Employers must take into account mitigating factors, especially for long-serving employees with a good employment record.
4. While testing for drug presence can be justified, especially when impairment testing is not feasible, employers must recognise that a policy focusing solely on presence might face scrutiny if not balanced with fairness considerations.
5. Employers should allow employees the opportunity to respond to allegations and consider all relevant factors before deciding to terminate their employment.

Employers should seek appropriate advice and assistance as needed:

1. To ensure their workplace policies are not only legally compliant but also fair and transparent.
2. When assessing the balance between enforcing safety-critical policies and ensuring fair treatment of employees.

Implications for Employees

For employees, especially those in safety-critical roles, this case serves as a cautionary tale about the risks associated with drug use, even outside of work hours.

The presence of drugs, even without impairment, can lead to disciplinary action if it violates company policy. Employees should be fully aware of their employer’s drug and alcohol policies and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

If an employee believes that they may be terminated for a breach of policy, including those related to drugs, they should seek appropriate advice.

Summary

This case shows that while employers have the right to enforce strict drug and alcohol policies, dismissals based on policy breaches must be carefully justified, especially with long-serving employees with good records.

[1] Sydney Trains v Reece Goodsell [2024] FWCFB 401
[2] Reece Goodsell v Sydney Trains [2023] FWC 3209

Contact Us

*The information provided in this website serves as a general guide and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on our research and experience at the time of publication. Please consult our knowledgeable legal team for any specific inquiries or advice relevant to your circumstances, as the content may not have been updated subsequently.