Drowsy poultry worker roasted for refusal to submit to drug test

The Fair Work Commission has upheld the termination of a poultry worker who refused to undertake a drug test after he fell so deeply asleep while being transported at the end of a shift that he had to be woken by paramedics, with his unsatisfactory explanation for the incident compounded by his failure to attend a meeting with his employer to discuss his refusal.

The employee had completed a shift on 17 September 2024, which had started at 3.30am, when he fell asleep on the journey back from a farm on the Central Coast. Upon arrival in Sydney at 4.15pm, his co-workers were unable to wake him for a 45-minute period. The employee was finally roused by Ambulance NSW just after 5pm, with paramedics recording the individual was “unconscious on arrival”. The worker admitted to the paramedics that he had taken medication that day but “refused to state which drug” and “refused further assessment, refused observations, and rejected numerous offers to be driven home” (he later walked home). An incident report was completed the next day, with a co-worker relaying that they had overheard the employee tell paramedics he had taken drugs.

When the incident report reached the employer’s HR Department two days later, the employee initially claimed he had taken prescription medication which he had a bad reaction to, then when he confirmed he could not supply proof of a prescription, “changed his story” and suggested the medication belonged to a member of his household, but again, was unable to provide evidence in support. He was advised he would need to undertake a drug test in accordance with company policy and was provided three options for doing so – testing in the workplace at two different locations or attending his own GP – but the employee expressed reluctance saying he “had some personal issues to deal with”. The HR Manager made clear to the employee “the importance of following lawful instructions” and explained that “failure to comply with this direction could lead to a further conversation about his future employment with the company”.

Despite acknowledging the importance of the employer’s request, the employee did not undertake a drug test and failed to attend a meeting “to discuss his failure to take a drug test” on 24 September. The worker’s employment was terminated on 30 September 2024.  

In upholding the employee’s termination, Deputy President Easton assessed the worker’s evidence on the drug he had taken on 17 September as “not satisfactory”. During Commission proceedings the employee claimed he had taken an over-the-counter allergy medication, which conflicted with his advice to his employer that it was a prescription medication. The Deputy President also noted there was “no logical reason” the employee would have withheld this information from the paramedics who treated him as taking allergy medication was “innocent enough”, rejecting his claim that he did not tell the paramedics what drug he had taken merely because he “didn’t like the fuss”.

The employee argued that the employer’s request to submit to a drug test was unreasonable, because “too much time had passed since the incident”. Whilst the Deputy President conceded that “the direction should have been given earlier”, he found the events of 17 September were “significant” and that the employer’s concerns “were reasonably held”. Deputy President Easton confirmed “the direction to submit to a drug test was lawful and reasonable” and was not persuaded that the employee’s “significantly difficult” personal circumstances prevented him from complying with the request.

In respect of the process leading up to dismissal, the Deputy President identified the employee was invited to attend a meeting, with a support person of his choosing, on 24 September, which he ignored, instead opting to send a text message to the HR Manager on 26 September, indicating that “he was close to resolving his personal circumstances and that he was ready to return to work”. Although the employee claimed he knew nothing about the status of his employment until he received the termination letter on the morning of 30 September, Deputy President Easton was sufficiently satisfied that the worker “was given the opportunity to provide a response to the valid reason for his dismissal prior to the dismissal itself”.

In concluding the termination was not unfair, the Deputy President observed that the “failure to take a drug test contravened the [employer’s] policy and was a failure to follow a lawful and reasonable direction” adding that the employer was “entitled to treat the failure to take the test in the same way as a failing of a drug test”, thereby constituting a valid reason for dismissal.

Grachan v Poultry Enterprises NSW Pty Limited [2025] FWC 2097 (18 July 2025)