In a significant ruling for the transport industry, the Fair Work Commission has ordered Sleepeezee Bedding Australia to pay over $34,000 in compensation to a truck driver sacked after testing positive for cannabis during a roadside police test.
The ruling highlights critical gaps that employers must avoid when managing drug and alcohol issues in the workplace.
The Incident
In May 2025, Mr Dale‑McCormick, a Heavy Combination (HC) driver, was stopped by NSW Police for a random roadside drug test. The result returned positive for THC. Mr Dale‑McCormick was upfront with both police and his employer. He admitted he had smoked cannabis socially three days earlier, on the weekend, while off duty.
There was no evidence presented that he was driving erratically, unsafe, or impaired at the time of the stop.
The Pre‑Determined Dismissal
Sleepeezee Bedding moved quickly to terminate his employment, citing a breach of their Drug and Alcohol Policy and the “imminent safety risk” he posed to the public. However, the Commission found a critical flaw: the employer had drafted the termination letter four days before they even held a disciplinary meeting with the driver.
Commissioner Trevor Clarke noted that the company had “effectively pre-determined” the outcome, denying the driver a genuine opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Presence vs Impairment
At the heart of the decision was a concept that continues to challenge workplace drug and alcohol management – the difference between drug presence and actual impairment.
The Commission Found
- No Evidence of Impairment
The employer provided no proof that the driver was under the influence or unfit for duty at the time of the police stop. - Policy Misinterpretation
The company’s own policy prohibited being “under the influence,” but failed to establish that a residual positive result from three days prior equated to being “under the influence” while working. - Disproportionate Response
While the driver’s “off-duty poor decision making” was noted, the Commission ruled that summary dismissal was a disproportionate reaction.
The Outcome – $34,904 in Compensation
The Commission determined that, had the unfair dismissal not occurred, Mr Dale‑McCormick would likely have remained employed for a further six months.
Compensation was calculated at $31,304 in gross compensation and $3,600 in superannuation, totalling $34,904. The gross amount reflects a 30% deduction for contributory conduct, acknowledging the employee’s choice to use an illegal substance despite working in a safety‑critical role. The payment was ordered to be made within 28 days.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case serves as a stern reminder that even when a safety breach seems obvious (like a positive drug test), procedural fairness is non-negotiable. Drafting termination letters before a disciplinary hearing and failing to prove actual workplace impairment can turn a “valid reason” into an expensive unfair dismissal.
How Alcolizer Technology Can Help
Alcolizer Technology supports organisations to avoid exactly this type of risk through:
- Drug and alcohol policy and procedure drafting and review
- Evidence‑based testing frameworks aligned with legal expectations
- Supervisor training to identify impairment indicators, not just test results
- End‑to‑end support that balances safety, compliance, and fairness
In a rapidly changing legal and testing environment, getting the process right is just as important as getting the result right. If you’d like to review your current approach, our team can help.