[2025] FWC 116
Citation: [2025] FWC 116
What happened
the Applicant, a Works Officer for Glamorgan Spring Bay Council, was dismissed after a positive drug test for THC, a component of medicinal cannabis he was taking for chronic pain. the Applicant had previously disclosed his medicinal cannabis use to the council and received a doctor's letter confirming his fitness for work. The council sought a medical assessment from a witness, who concluded the Applicant was not fit for safety-critical work while taking medicinal cannabis. The Australian Services Union (ASU) raised concerns about the dismissal process.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant's dismissal was unfair, despite a valid reason for dismissal (failure to disclose medicinal cannabis use). The Commission determined the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable because the council did not adequately consider alternative options, such as exploring other pain management strategies or considering less safety-critical roles. The Commission ordered reinstatement of the Applicant. It also criticised the ASU for failing to adequately assist the Applicant.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully consider all options before dismissing an employee, especially when dealing with medical conditions. A robust and fair process, including exploring reasonable adjustments and alternative roles, is crucial. Employers should also be cautious about relying solely on medical assessments and consider the employee's prior performance and disclosures.
What it means for employees
Employees with medical conditions should disclose them to their employer and obtain supporting documentation from their doctor. Employees should also seek assistance from relevant unions or employee representatives during workplace disputes.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc116.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →