The employee’s human resource officer received an ‘anonymous tipoff’ that two employees of the practice were under the influence of drugs and holding property belonging to the pathology practice in their home. The employee in question had taken an apprehended violence order (AVO) against her neighbour the day before, due to an incident between the employee’s dog and the neighbour’s child.

The employee was called to a meeting the next day and directed to undergo a urine drug test, to be collected by her manager. The employee stated she was happy to take the test but did not think it was appropriate to have someone she knew and worked closely with take the sample. The employee grew agitated and after being granted permission to go outside for some air left the premises and did not return despite being directed to do so. The employee subsequently produced a medical certificate for the afternoon of her absence.

In a follow up meeting the employee disclosed she had been stressed due to the AVO matter and again reiterated she was happy to take a test in line with Australian/New Zealand Standard. The meeting resulted in a letter advising her employment would be terminated for serious misconduct in failing to obey a direction. There was confusion whether the “direction” related to not taking the test or not returning to work following the original meeting.

The human resource officer stated while she was aware the employee was seeking an AVO against her neighbour and whilst she knew it was the neighbour who had phoned in to advise of the drug use “she did not think these two matters were connected” and did not believe this to be a relevant matter to disclose when recommending to the CEO the employee be terminated.

Commissioner Bissett found the employee’s refusal to return to the disciplinary meeting was not a valid reason for dismissal. Additionally, Commissioner Bissett concluded employee had not refused to provide a urine sample and had only objected to her direct manager administering that sample. She also concluded there had been procedural errors in the dismissal, and ordered the employer pay $27,900 for the unfair dismissal.

Read the full decision here.

This case highlights the importance of following an adequate investigation process and not relying upon hearsay when making termination decisions. Internal investigations are important for ensuring reports of bullying, harassment, discrimination and serious misconduct are handled correctly. Investigations In the Workplace on 13 October will provide knowledge on what constitutes unlawful behaviours, the principles of an effective investigation and outline your role as an investigator.