Resources: Blogs

Running Man

Blogs
|

Employee who faked test results abandons hearing

Generally speaking, most matters in the Fair Work Commission run in a “no costs” jurisdiction. This means that parties bringing or responding to applications in the Commission will be responsible for their own costs - no matter who is successful. However, the Commission does have some discretion to order costs in exceptional circumstances. One such rare decision was handed down last week in G v Toll Holdings Ltd [2016] FWC 2790.

Generally speaking, most matters in the Fair Work Commission run in a “no costs” jurisdiction. This means that parties bringing or responding to applications in the Commission will be responsible for their own costs - no matter who is successful. However, the Commission does have some discretion to order costs in exceptional circumstances. One such rare decision was handed down last week in G v Toll Holdings Ltd [2016] FWC 2790.

Mr G was a Yard Truck Driver for Toll Holdings Ltd (Toll). Toll conducted drug testing in accordance with a Drug and Alcohol Policy. In June 2015, Mr G tested positive for drugs at work after taking a saliva test, and his employment was terminated as a result.

Prior to his dismissal, Mr G told Toll that immediately following the saliva test at work, he had gone to his doctor and taken a urine test that was sent off for processing. That test, he said, returned a negative result and showed that he had no drugs in his system.

Mr G maintained this version of events when giving evidence under oath and in his sworn witness statement, to which he attached the urine test results.

At the hearing of this matter, the doctor who administered the urine drug test was called to give evidence. He said that the test results attached to Mr G’s witness statement were not the test results he had given to Mr G and it was apparent that the document relied upon by Mr G had been manipulated. The doctor confirmed that the original test results were positive not negative.

After this evidence, the hearing adjourned briefly and when it can time to recommence, Mr G could not be located. In the words of the Commissioner, Mr G “did a runner.”

Toll then made a costs application pursuant to s611(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) on the basis that Mr G had manufactured the test results on which he was seeking to rely and his entire claim was based on a lie.

The Commissioner found in favour of Toll and ordered Mr G to pay all Toll’s costs to the tune of $18,618.31. The Commissioner found that Mr G’s application for relief from unfair dismissal was without reasonable cause, had no reasonable prospects of success and was vexatious.

The lessons to take away from this unusual case are that employers should not be afraid to defend unfair dismissal matters and that former employees should think carefully before making a claim alleging they were unfairly dismissed.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

Read more...

FWC finds summary dismissal not warranted despite employee’s misconduct

A not-so serious problem

In the recent unfair dismissal decision of Carmody v Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 259, the FWC has clarified what will (or will not) constitute ‘serious misconduct’ warranting summary dismissal in the context of managing employee performance.

Read more...

FWC finds that employer dismissed employee who refused to sign new employment contract

Blank space

In its simplest form, an employment contract is a legally enforceable document between two parties where there is an offer and acceptance to be bound by its terms and conditions. Where an employment contract has been signed, it cannot be unilaterally changed by one of the parties – there must be agreement by both parties.

Read more...

FWC finds employer’s assumptions about employee’s capacity rendered dismissal unfair

You need to chill out

If an employer is questioning the capacity of an ill or injured worker’s ability to fulfil the inherent requirements of their position, they may consider testing the legitimacy of an employee’s prognoses and medical advice. In these circumstances, the employer should be aware of their obligations to the employee and the potential consequences of failing to satisfy them.

Read more...

FWC finds dismissal harsh and unreasonable given employer’s communication blunder of policy changes

Sliding into your DM’s

It is best practice for employers to ensure that their policies and procedures are properly communicated and understood by employees, especially in circumstances where the policy relates to important topics such as the health and safety of employees.

Read more...

Poor redundancy process results in successful workers compensation claim

Coffee catastrophe

There are a number of legal obligations and risks that an employer must consider when implementing any form of disciplinary or dismissal process. These are not limited to claims made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) but can also include the risk of claims made under anti-discrimination or workers compensation legislation.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.

Subscribe

* indicates required