[2025] FWC 2316
At a glance
- 1
What happened
Maxwell Parks was dismissed from his employment with WorkPac Pty Ltd after returning a non-negative result on a drug test. Parks initiated a claim in the Fair Work Commission alleging unfair dismissal. The dispute centered on which drug and alcohol policy applied – WorkPac's general policy or a site-specific policy from Batchfire Callide and Boundary Hill. Parks argued the company didn't properly consider all circumstances before termination. WorkPac's policies outline requirements for fitness for work, including drug and alcohol screening, and procedures for handling non-negative test results.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that WorkPac did not adequately consider all the circumstances before dismissing Maxwell Parks. While a valid reason for dismissal existed based on the drug test result, the company failed to follow its own procedures and didn't properly apply the relevant policy. The Commission determined the termination was harsh and awarded Parks compensation. The Commissioner noted confusion regarding the applicable policy and the lack of consideration of all circumstances.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure they consistently apply the correct policies and procedures when dealing with employee disciplinary matters, especially regarding fitness for work. Clear communication about applicable policies is crucial. Thoroughly considering all circumstances before termination is essential to avoid a finding of unfair dismissal. Failing to do so can lead to costly compensation orders.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to expect employers to follow their own policies and procedures. If an employer fails to do so, it can be grounds for an unfair dismissal claim. Employees should familiarize themselves with their employer's policies and seek clarification if unsure about their application.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.