Your preferred office location:
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. HHG Articles
  4. /
  5. Drug Testing – Zero Tolerance and Safety
6 Nov 2014

Recent decisions in the Fair Work Commission (FWC) confirm that employers’ requirements to submit to drug testing must be based on safety concerns and cannot unreasonably intrude into their employees’ private lives. The FWC approaches decisions regarding drug testing with reference to balancing the employees’ right to privacy with the duty of the employer to provide a safe workplace. The issue arises in regards to the preferred method of drug testing (urine versus saliva) and the appropriate consequences for both refusing and/or failing a drug test.


Urine Vs Saliva Testing

In relation to impairment, cannabis is recognised by the Commission as the most widely used drug apart from alcohol. It is becoming accepted that saliva testing more accurately detects impairment due to cannabis use. The FWC has been told that saliva will return a positive result when the person tested has used the drug recently (within the last few hours).  On the other hand urine tests can reportedly fail to detect that someone has just used the drug but will deliver a positive result days after use when the person is no longer affected.  In addition urine testing involves a more intrusive procedure in relation to collection of the sample. Both testing methods are able to be exploited by people seeking to evade detection.


In 2012 the Fair Work Commission found that Endeavour Energy would be unreasonable to institute a new policy requiring employees to submit to urine drug testing when employees indicated they would prefer to submit to oral drug testing. In that decision the Commission found ‘that it is precisely because it only detects for recent use that oral fluid testing is a better indicator of likely impairment as a result of smoking cannabis (the most widely used drug apart from alcohol) than a urine test.’


Oral tests are less invasive however not as readily available and are not currently considered best practice. Using these arguments, Endeavour Energy attempted to have the 2012 decision discussed above reviewed but the Commission found earlier this year that ‘nothing happened since the original decision and subsequent appeal in 2012 to indicate that on-site oral fluid testing devices are unreliable’. Endeavour Energy [2014] FWC 198 (15 January 2014).


In The Maritime Union of Australia v DP World [2014] FWC 1523 The FWC outlined the importance of balancing the need to ensure safety in the workplace with workers’ rights to be protected from unnecessary intrusions into their private lives. In that case, the FWC noted that ‘[u]rine testing may reveal personal choices of individuals that do not present a risk to safety in the workplace, but compromise their autonomy and dignity and lead to serious disciplinary consequences including job loss’.


Refusing a Drug Test

Despite the FWC’s rulings in relation to the Endeavour cases, where an employer has an existing policy that requires urine testing an employee’s refusal to submit to urinalysis and request oral testing instead can be a valid reason for dismissal. In Briggs v AWH Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 2017 the FWC concluded that urine testing is a reasonable and legitimate form of testing, and  an employer may choose to adopt and require urine testing regardless of whether one or more employees would prefer an alternative approach.  If employees know their employer’s policy requires urine testing then the employer is not unreasonable to demand urine testing and refuse a request for oral testing.


Failing a Drug Test

When it comes to dealing with an employee who has failed a drug test, employers may find they are found to have unfairly dismissed an employee where t it can be demonstrated the employee was not impaired by the drug while at work. 


In Christopher Toms v Harbour City Ferries Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 2327 even though the employee returned a positive drug test after being in control of a ferry which crashed – it was concluded that he was not impaired by the drug at the time of the incident and that his prior good record in relation to drug testing over a period of long service (16 years) made his dismissal for failing the drug test unfair. The Commission considered that the availability of other sanctions short of dismissal should have been considered and ordered the employee to be reinstated. This decision confirms that Zero Tolerance policies cannot be enforced without consideration of surrounding circumstances. Safety should be central to an employer’s decision to about whether to dismiss someone for failing a drug test


Lessons for Employers

Clearly outline your drug and alcohol procedure and testing requirements. It will be unreasonable to state that you will adopt a zero tolerance approach and summarily dismiss anyone that returns a positive drug test. It is considered reasonable to offer re-testing of the original sample if an employee requests it. If an employee fails a test offer them an opportunity to explain their apparent breach, consider whether the test proves the employee is likely to have been impaired at the workplace (a saliva test more clearly establishes impairment) and the impact the breach has had on the provision of a safe workplace. Consider the employee’s past conduct and any alternative disciplinary procedures before deciding on dismissal. An employee can safely be returned to work once they have tested negative – however it is usual to make such a return to work at the discretion of an employer.


This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. If you would like further information in relation to this matter or other legal matters please contact our office on Freecall 1800 609 945 or email us now.

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australians for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"


My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"


"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."


"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"


"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."


"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."


"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."


"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."


"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."


"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."


"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve and Jane

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."


"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."


"I had a fantastic lawyer in Matthew Lilly. He helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Matthew"


"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."


"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."


"Good service you can count on."


"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."


"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Matthew."


"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Lawyer in Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."


Preferred Office location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.