A Sydney office worker unfairly dismissed for refusing a drug and alcohol test after a “boozy” four-hour lunch has won over $64,000 at the Fair Work Commission. The worker had been allegedly observed slurring her words and acting confused when back at the office. However, the Commission found that the employer had unreasonably requested a test. It had also denied her rights during the dismissal process, failing to conduct an investigation despite telling her it did.
In this article, we’ll explore the events of this case – Chantelle Tamati v MQT Pty Ltd [2025]. We’ll also look at another recent unfair dismissal case involving a security guard who blew hot for drugs following the discovery of his bong in a microwave.
Chantelle Tamati began working in a management role for transport company MQT in September 2021. On 10 April 2025, she went to lunch with two workmates, Chris Helene and Robert King, at a licensed premises near their office. The lunch went for around four hours. Ms. Tamati told the Fair Work Commission that she had one Jim Beam and Coke along with garlic pizza and soda water. Evidence presented to the Commission suggested that attending “boozy” lunches at a licensed premises was not considered “out of the ordinary”at MQT.
Upon their return to the office, Ms. Helene was observed being “disruptive” in the office. She later called a MQT director to say that she was resigning. Following Mr. Helene’s departure, a MQT safety manager suggested that Ms. Tamati and Mr. King should undergo a drug and alcohol breath test. Another manager agreed, stating he believed Ms. Tamati had been “acting a bit different” since returning from lunch. Another manager alleged that she was “slurring some words” and “repeating” questions.
Ms. Tamati was asked to come to a meeting room for a “quick chat.” She believed this was to discuss Mr. Helene’s wellbeing. But the conversation quickly shifted, with Ms. Tamati being questioned about her lunch consumption before being asked to take a drug and alcohol test. Ms. Tamati initially agreed, but became defensive, questioning the basis of the request. She said that she was “happy” to do the test. However, she asked about the “grounds” on which she was being asked to do it.
According to Ms. Tamati’s testimony to the Fair Work Commission, the MQT managers offered her varying and conflicting reasons for the required test. They said it was a “random” drug and alcohol test. But they later said that it would be conducted under “post incident and for cause.” Ms. Tamati then asked the managers “what have I done” to warrant a test. One of the managers said it was “because [you] went to lunch.” Ms. Tamati stated that she was now “getting defensive” because she felt her character and integrity was being “unreasonably attacked” based on their false pretences. She also told the men she felt she was being “tarnished by association.”
Ms. Tamati was then told that the request to take the test was a “lawful direction.” He told her that if she refused, she would be suspended and possibly dismissed. Ms. Tamati then refused to take the test and was suspended with pay.
On 11 April 2025, Ms. Tamati was advised by email of a follow-up meeting a few days later to discuss her refusal to take the test. At this meeting, she asked for clarity on the reason she was asked to take the test. Ms. Tamati was told that it was a random test, but she was also told that it was required when an employee is “under suspicion.”
She asked the MQT managers present to provide a written record of the investigation into the allegations against her. However, the company’s HR manager refused to do so, telling her that she was under investigation due to her refusal to take the test. Ms. Tamati then asked for a copy of MQT’s drug and alcohol policy. She claimed that the HR manager stormed out of the meeting, then returned 10 minutes later and “threw” the documents across the table.
Ms. Tamati read the drug and alcohol policy then asked the HR manager again the reason for her to be tested. He replied that it was requested as a post incident and for cause” due to the incident with Ms. Helene, with whom she had gone to lunch. He also said that he requested the test as Ms. Tamati had been “speaking loudly” in the office and had been exhibiting “unusual” behaviour.
Later in the meeting, Ms. Tamati was summarily dismissed for serious misconduct over refusing the test. She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.
In her unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Tamati acknowledged to the Fair Work Commission that she had refused the drug and alcohol test. However, she argued that the request was made without proper cause and was unreasonable.
Her core argument was that she was “misled” to believe it was a chat about Ms. Helene’s wellbeing. She said that she was instead “interrogated” without cause, leaving her feeling “ambushed.” Ms. Tamati drew attention to the conflicting reasons given by management for the test. She also questioned why she was subjected to the test when the incident was related to Mr. Helene.
MQT argued to the Fair Work Commission that Ms. Tamati’s dismissal was fair given that she had committed serious misconduct. This was because she had refused a lawful and reasonable direction to take a drug and alcohol test. Also, for violating MQT’s drug and alcohol policy by refusing the test.
The company contended that the request to take the test was justified as she had taken a four hour lunch and had admitted to having a Jim Beam and Coke. In addition, she had been exhibiting “concerning” behaviour, such as speaking loudly in the office and appeared confused. MQT highlighted that at one point, Ms. Tamati asked aloud, “What day is it?” The company maintained it had a duty of care to all employees to act on any indication of impairment.
Ms. Tamati’s unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in September 2025. It first considered whether the direction to take the test was lawful and reasonable. The Commission found that Ms. Tamati’s refusal to take the test was not a breach of a lawful direction because the direction itself was not reasonable. The Commission found that MQT’s representatives failed to clearly articulate a singular, valid reason for the test when requested by Ms. Tamati.
Furthermore, the specific signs of Ms. Tamati being “out of character” (such as slurring words and speaking loudly) didn’t match the indicators of intoxication listed in MQT’s drug and alcohol policy. This weakened the claim of “suspicion” as a valid ground for testing. It was also noted that merely attending the lunch was not enough to suspect Ms. Tamati of drinking.
The Fair Work Commission concluded that Ms. Tamati’s refusal to undergo the test was reasonable because MQT didn’t provide her with its policy during the initial meeting. She had only been provided it upon request during the disciplinary meeting. MQT managers had also failed to point to any specific provision allowing the company to mandate the testing. It was also noted that the policy lacked a specific sanction for refusing a test, and MQT didn’t explore disciplinary options other than dismissal.
The Commission also found significant procedural flaws with Ms. Tamati’s sacking. The company failed to provide her with written details of the allegation of serious misconduct and refusal of a lawful direction prior to the dismissal meeting. Crucially, the Commission also found that no actual investigation took place following Ms. Tamati’s suspension. For an employer the size of MQT, the Commission noted there was an “expectation” that processes that lead to terminationl will be thorough.
The Fair Work Commission also found that MQT’s drug and alcohol policy didn’t include a specific sanction for refusing a test. The company’s failure to adhere to its own disciplinary policy was compounded by the fact that the HR manager had failed to consider other disciplinary options.
Given MQT’s unreasonable direction for Ms. Tamati to undergo a test and the procedural deficiencies, the Commission ruled that her dismissal had been unfair. Reinstatement wasn’t considered appropriate as Ms. Tamati had already secured a new job, albeit paying $27,000 less per year. She was instead awarded a total of $63,500 in compensation.
Another recent unfair dismissal case involving a drug and alcohol test is Mr. Jethro Aisa v Southern Cross Protection Pty Ltd [2025]. Sydney-based Jethro Aisa began working as a full-time security guard for security firm Southern Cross Protection in March 2022. His duties typically involved working the overnight shift in the gatehouse of a Coles distribution centre.
On the morning of 12 November 2024, a day shift employee contacted a senior manager at Southern Cross Protection to report finding drug paraphernalia on site. He stated that he “found a bong in the microwave oven just now” in the gatehouse. Concerned that security guards might be using drugs on duty, Southern Cross Protection engaged an external company to conduct testing.
Mr. Aisa was rostered on a night shift starting on the evening of 20 November 2024. At about 4:45 am the next day, he was given a drug and alcohol test by the external company.
During the procedure, Mr. Aisa was asked if he had taken any prescription or non-prescription drugs in the last seven days. This is when he admitted to smoking methamphetamine and MDMA within the past week.
The saliva swab returned a non-negative result for methylamphetamine. Mr. Aisa was subsequently placed on paid leave by Southern Cross Protection. Subsequent laboratory testing confirmed a positive result for methylamphetamine at a concentration of 208.3 ng/mL and amphetamine at 36.8 ng/mL. These readings significantly exceeded the 50 ng/mL limit set out in Southern Cross Protection’s drug and alcohol policy for amphetamine type substances.
Southern Cross Protection subsequently initiated a show cause process with Mr. Aisa. It said to him that his positive reading violated its code of conduct policy and drug and alcohol policy. During the show cause meeting on 29 November 2024, Mr. Aisa confirmed he was a drug user on his days off work. He said that the reason for the positive test was likely because he had just had two days off.
Southern Cross Protection summarily fired Mr. Aisa, citing serious misconduct occasioning a non-negative drug test. The company also reported the matter to the Security Licensing and Enforcement Division of the New South Wales Police.
Mr. Aisa subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission. He agreed that the drug test results were accurate. However, he argued that the drug testing procedure itself was unfair. He submitted that the evidence concerning the discovery of the bong was fabricated to justify the testing. He also took issue with the test being conducted while the gatehouse was operational. Mr. Aisa disputed that the drug test result proved he was impaired or “under the influence of the drug” while on duty. He denied consuming drugs while on duty, but admitted to doing so on his off days.
Southern Cross Protection presented the Fair Work Commission with evidence from a toxicologist. The toxicologist’s opinion was that the concentration of 208.3 ng/mL was indicative of use within a few hours of the drug test. This suggested that Mr. Aisa must have consumed the drug while on duty. The toxicologist also said that the after effects of methylamphetamine include fatigue, weariness and slow reaction times. Southern Cross Protection argued these effects would be detrimental to the position held by Mr. Aisa.
At Mr. Aisa’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Fair Work Commission found that Southern Cross Protection had a valid reason for the sacking. This was due to Mr. Aisa returning a positive drug test for methylamphetamine that exceeded the 50 ng/mL in the drug and alcohol policy. The Commission found that Southern Cross Protection’s policy was a lawful and reasonable direction given the safety objectives of the policy and Mr. Aisa’s role.
However, it wasn’t satisfied that Mr. Aisa must have consumed the drug while on duty, nor that he was impaired while at work. This finding was based on toxicologist’s evidence that a single oral fluid level “cannot be correlated” with dose, frequency of use or an exact time of use.”
Regarding Mr. Aisa’s argument that the testing procedure was unfair, the Fair Work Commission said that Southern Cross Protection had the discretion to conduct testing. Considering the seriousness of the misconduct in the context of a safety-critical role, the Commission concluded that the summary dismissal wasn’t a disproportionate response. This was supported by the fact that the positive test result was in excess of four times the minimum detectable amount. Mr. Aisa’s unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.
For over 30 years, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives has helped Australian employees stand up to unfair dismissal, bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment and more. Our experienced representatives know the Fair Work system inside out and focus solely on protecting workers’ rights.
If you want to make a Fair Work claim, act fast, as strict deadlines apply. Contact us seven days a week on 1800 333 666 for a private and free initial consultation.
