Case examines how employers should handle medical disclosures in safety-critical roles
The Fair Work Commission recently examined an unfair dismissal case where a multi-skilled operator at a coal mine challenged his dismissal.
The worker argued his employer unfairly terminated him over having prescribed medication in his system and a brief incident involving safety equipment.
The case centered on a worker who had disclosed his prescribed medications, including Temazepam, to his employer. He maintained there was confusion about whether he needed to completely avoid the medication or just not take it during work hours.
The decision highlighted questions about how employers should handle situations where prescribed medications intersect with workplace safety requirements, and whether proper termination procedures were followed.
Medical requirements meet workplace safety
A labour hire company, SESLS Pty Ltd, employed the worker as a multi-skilled operator at the Maules Creek open cut coal mine in New South Wales from May 2020. He worked on a drive-in, drive-out basis, operating equipment owned by Whitehaven Coal Mining Ltd under their direction.
The worker had bipolar disorder and depression, taking Temazepam and other medications as prescribed by his physicians. In June 2024, he took leave due to work-related stress, providing medical certificates for his absence from 10-20 June 2024.
When submitting medical information for his return, his use of Temazepam prompted discussions between the labour hire company's health and safety manager and the mining site representatives.
This led to a medical management plan stating: Must not take Temazepam during assignment. It is against [the mining company's] Safety Rules to take any form of Benzodiazepine if performing a Safety Critical Role.
Safety protocols trigger dismissal case
On 23 July 2024, a random drug test detected Temazepam in the worker's system. The Fair Work Commission noted: It was not in issue that the Temazepam detected in [the worker's] system was a prescription medication and that [the worker] was taking the drug in accordance with the instructions of his treating physicians.
The mining company's superintendent and safety officer reviewed the test result and allowed the worker to continue his duties that day. Two days later, while operating mining equipment, the worker covered an in-vehicle camera for 25 seconds to use mouthwash.
As the Fair Work Commission documented: [The worker] was trained in the safe use of mining technology systems which includes the prohibition on tampering with or blocking the camera.
The worker was dismissed the following day in the car park after a brief meeting. The Fair Work Commission found: There was no genuine opportunity to respond and no proper consideration of anything [the worker] had to say during the brief discussion in the car park. The decision had already been made.
Medical policies create workplace conflict
The labour hire company's existing drug policy had established procedures for handling prescribed medications, including specific steps for managing test results.
The FWC observed that implementing a complete ban on benzodiazepines marked a significant departure from this policy.
The Commission identified serious procedural issues in its decision: The processes followed by [the employer] were manifestly inadequate, particularly in relation to the Temazepam issue. [The worker] should have been allowed to offer his explanation in relation to the taking of prescribed medication which he had previously disclosed to the company.
The decision emphasised that several factors required consideration: [The worker's] longstanding disclosure of his use of medication, imposition of a new policy and what I regard as [the worker's] genuine misunderstanding of what was required of him are all matters that should have been taken into proper account before the termination occurred.
Unfair dismissal leads to compensation
The FWC found fundamental problems with the termination process: The conflicting requirements of [the worker's] medical condition, his use of a prescribed medication, the terms of the Policy and the additional instruction from [the mining company] that the use of Temazepam by [the worker] was prohibited at all times should have been the subject of further consideration and discussion before the decision to terminate was implemented.
After examining the case under section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Commission determined: Having considered each of the matters specified in section 387 of the Fair Work Act, I am satisfied that the dismissal of [the worker] was harsh and unreasonable.
As reinstatement was not sought and was considered inappropriate given the circumstances, the Commission ordered compensation of $20,648.29 plus superannuation at 11.5%, representing eight weeks' pay with reductions for contingencies and the worker's conduct in covering the safety camera.
https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/prescribed-medication-at-work-leads-to-unfair-dismissal/523577
