Home / Case database
13 decisions · updated as they publish · verified against decision texts
The medicinal cannabis & workplace testing case database
Last verified:
Every consequential Fair Work Commission and court decision on cannabis, workplace drug testing and dismissal — organised into the three lines that actually explain the law: the Full Bench pillars, the medicinal era, and the testing-procedure disputes. One plain-English lesson per case. Entries marked “summary in review” are being verified against the published decision before the full summary ships.
Line one: the Full Bench pillars (what every modern case cites)
| Decision | Facts in one line | Outcome | The principle it stands for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harbour City Ferries v Toms [2014] FWCFB 6249; appeal dismissed, Toms v Harbour City Ferries [2015] FCAFC 35 | Ferry master smoked cannabis for shoulder pain on a night off, was called in next day, tested positive after a minor berthing accident. No evidence of impairment; accident unrelated to the drug. | Dismissal stood | The foundation stone: breach of a clear safety policy is serious misconduct in itself — the employer “never wants to have the discussion” about whether drugs contributed. Impairment evidence is beside the point. Note the detail: this was self-medication for pain, a decade before prescriptions were mainstream. |
| Sharp v BCS Infrastructure Support [2015] FWCFB 1033 | Aviation maintenance worker, reading far above the cannabinoid cut-off in safety-sensitive aviation activities. | Dismissal upheld | Industry regimes harden everything: where a regulated safety scheme sits above the employer policy, strict enforcement is reasonable even where impairment can’t be established either way. |
| Sydney Trains v Hilder [2020] FWCFB 1373 | Rail worker, one-off cannabis use at a social gathering, failed a random test at work the next morning. | Reinstatement overturned | The “breach simpliciter” case: attending work above the cut-off breaches the policy unconditionally — the worker’s honest belief that enough time had passed did not save him. |
| Sydney Trains v Goodsell [2024] FWCFB 401 (first instance: Goodsell v Sydney Trains [2023] FWC 3209) | Rail worker, positive cannabis test; first instance weighed the employer’s failure to explain its zero-tolerance stance and found for the worker. | Summary in review | The live frontier: how far a valid reason can be outweighed by process failures and harshness. Full Bench treatment being verified before we publish the holding. |
Line two: the medicinal era (lawful prescription, same policies)
| Decision | Industry | Outcome | One-line lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haigh v Platinum Blasting Services [2023] FWC 2465 | Mining services / explosives | Dismissal upheld | Disclosed once, switched medication, quietly resumed cannabis — disclosure is an ongoing duty, not a form filled at induction. |
| Gauci v DP World Brisbane [2024] FWC 2351 | Stevedoring | Dismissal upheld | The policy set cut-offs, not impairment measures — and the Commission noted that had he disclosed, doctor and employer could have agreed working arrangements. The safety valve existed; he never pulled it. |
| Mills v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council [2025] FWC 116 | Council works / machinery | Dismissal upheld | Partial disclosure is non-disclosure: he declared the cannabis, not the THC. A late offer to change medication couldn’t cure the breach. |
| Witherden v DP World Sydney [2025] FWC 294 | Stevedoring | Summary in review | Argued the distinction between a valid reason and a fair dismissal, with long unblemished service in the balance — the harshness frontier applied to a testing case. |
| Wight v Queensland Rail (2025) | Rail / shunting | Summary in review | Self-medication without disclosure in a rail-safety role after extended leave. |
| Parks v WorkPac (U2025/1247, Batchfire mine) | Coal mining | Summary in review | Site self-test kits aligned to the superseded 25 ng/mL standard while formal testing used 2019’s 15 ng/mL — a worker could pass his own kit and fail the program’s. |
Line three: testing-procedure disputes (where evidence is made or destroyed)
| Decision | What was fought over | Outcome | One-line lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pitts v AGC Industries [2013] FWCFB 9196 | Urine screening and retest windows after non-negative results | Process scrutinised | Retest timeframes and how workers “come clean” matter — testing programs are judged as processes, not single results. |
| Hancock v DP World Brisbane [2022] FWCFB 142 | Chain of custody and the policy’s dismissal provision | Valid reason upheld | Documented chain of custody plus the worker’s own admission defeated the process challenge. |
| Cunningham v Downer EDI Mining [2015] FWC 318 | Methylamphetamine at four times the cut-off, mine dump truck | Dismissal upheld | The framework is substance-agnostic: the same policy machinery decides cannabis, meth and everything else. |
The principles, extracted
- Breach simpliciter. Since Toms and confirmed in Hilder: exceeding the cut-off at work is itself serious misconduct. No impairment evidence needed; none accepted in mitigation.
- Disclosure is the medicinal era’s battleground. Every upheld medicinal-era dismissal turns on non-disclosure, partial disclosure, or lapsed disclosure — not the prescription.
- The safety valve is real but must be used early. Gauci shows the path the worker skipped: disclose, involve the doctor, agree arrangements. That path is also what makes strict policies defensible for employers.
- Harshness is the worker’s remaining ground. Service, record, honesty and process failures still swing outcomes at the margin — the frontier currently being tested in the Sydney Trains line and Witherden.
- Procedure is evidence. Chain of custody, standards matching and confirmatory testing decide cases before the merits are reached (Hancock, Parks).
Know a decision we’ve missed? Email the citation — the database is updated
as decisions publish, and every summary is verified against the published text before its chip goes
green or red.
Employers: the Policy Pack applies all of this Workers: the Rights Kit is the survival manual
Not legal advice. This page explains the law in general terms as at the “last verified” date shown. If you have been stood down or dismissed, or need to make a decision that depends on the law, speak to an employment lawyer — small differences in circumstances change outcomes, and the 21-day unfair dismissal deadline does not wait.