Can I be fired just for having a medicinal cannabis prescription?

Holding a lawful prescription is not, by itself, a valid reason for dismissal. But attending work with THC above your policy's cut-off, or failing to disclose medication your policy requires you to disclose, can be — the Fair Work Commission has upheld dismissals on both grounds even where the cannabis was lawfully prescribed and there was no evidence of impairment.

Do workplace drug tests measure impairment?

No. Workplace tests detect the presence of THC at or above a cut-off concentration — they say nothing reliable about whether you are impaired at the time. Most Australian drug and alcohol policies are written around cut-offs, not impairment, and the Commission has repeatedly treated exceeding the cut-off as a breach in itself.

Do I have to tell my employer about my prescription?

Check your drug and alcohol policy. Most modern policies impose a disclosure duty for medication that could affect safe work — and the upheld medicinal-era dismissals (Gauci, Mills, Haigh) all turned on silence, half-disclosure or lapsed disclosure rather than the prescription itself. Disclosure is usually an ongoing duty: it must be renewed when the medication changes, stops or resumes.

One prescription. Two sides of the same test.

Legally prescribed. Still tested at work.

Over a million Australians hold medicinal cannabis prescriptions — and around 3.5 million workers are in industries where drug testing happens. When those two groups overlap, careers end and unfair dismissal claims begin. This site is the reference for where you actually stand, whichever side of the specimen jar you’re on.

Check your industry + state in 10 seconds →

For workers

You hold a prescription. Your workplace tests.

What your employer can ask, when you must disclose, what a non-negative result really means, and the mistakes that have cost people their jobs at the Fair Work Commission.

Worker guides Where do I stand? (free tool)

For employers

Your D&A policy predates medicinal cannabis.

How to update testing, disclosure and disciplinary procedures so they survive a Fair Work challenge — without discriminating against lawfully prescribed staff.

Employer guides Score your policy (free)

1M+Australians prescribed since 2016

~3.5Mworkers in tested industries

13decisions in the case database

21 daysunfair dismissal claim deadline

The core problem in one paragraph

Workplace drug tests detect presence, not impairment. THC can return a non-negative result long after any effect has worn off, and most drug and alcohol policies set cut-off levels rather than impairment tests. Since 2014, Full Bench after Full Bench — from the Sydney ferry master in Toms to the rail cases — has treated exceeding the cut-off as a breach in itself, no impairment required. The medicinal era added a twist the old cases never had: the drug is now lawfully prescribed. That collision is what this site maps, for both sides.

The case database

13 decisions and counting — the Full Bench pillars every judgment cites, the medicinal-era dismissals, and the testing-procedure disputes — each with an outcome chip and one plain-English lesson. Updated as decisions publish, verified against the published text.

Decision	Line	Outcome	Lesson
Harbour City Ferries v Toms [2014] FWCFB 6249	Full Bench pillars	Dismissal stood	Used cannabis for shoulder pain, unimpaired, accident unrelated — policy obedience still won.
Mills v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council [2025] FWC 116	The medicinal era	Dismissal upheld	Disclosed the cannabis — but not the THC.
Gauci v DP World Brisbane [2024] FWC 2351	The medicinal era	Dismissal upheld	Cut-off policy beat the “I wasn’t impaired” argument.

Open the full database

Your industry, your state

Testing regimes are set by industry; the legal overlay changes by state. Pick yours:

Mining & FIFOStrictest testing in the country Transport & LogisticsWorkplace + roadside double regime RailNational-law D&A programs AviationDAMP regime — effectively nil tolerance Maritime & PortsCut-off regimes — DP World case line ConstructionEmployer policy + site rules HealthcareRegistration duties on top of policy Offices & GeneralLow testing — policies still bind

NSWHome of the rail & ports case law VICParliamentary scrutiny of testing QLDCoal & resources testing regimes WARegulator guidance published SARegimes vary — read your policy TASHome of the Mills disclosure case ACTDecriminalisation changes nothing at work NTRemote sites raise the stakes

Free tools

Where do I stand?

Six questions — role, disclosure, product, testing — and you get a risk band plus the exact guides to read next. Runs on this page; nothing is sent anywhere.

Run the check

10-point policy gap score

Score your drug and alcohol policy against the clauses the decided cases actually turned on. Instant score, on the page.

Score your policy

Plain-English glossary

Non-negative, chain of custody, breach simpliciter, DAMP, confirmatory testing — every term on one page.

Open the glossary

Toolkits, when reading isn’t enough

Four self-serve packs, priced by the moment you’re in: the Worker’s Rights Kit ($39) for prevention, the Dismissal Response Kit ($79) for when it has already gone wrong, and the Employer Policy Pack ($299 / PRO $499) for the people who write the rules. See everything inside each pack.

The case-law update list

One email when a decision, standard or regulator guidance changes where you stand. No noise between.

General information only — not legal advice. Unsubscribe anytime.