[2026] FWC 347
Citation: [2026] FWC 347
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000153
What happened
Brayden Dale-McCormick was dismissed from Sleepeezee Bedding Australia Pty Ltd after a roadside drug test revealed cannabis in his system. Dale-McCormick admitted to using cannabis over the weekend prior to returning to work. The company administered a roadside test during working hours while he was driving a heavy combination truck. The dismissal occurred on May 13, 2025, and Dale-McCormick applied for unfair dismissal remedy on May 20, 2025. Sleepeezee Bedding stated they had 143 employees at the time, disqualifying them from being considered a small business employer. There was some inconsistency in the evidence regarding when Dale-McCormick admitted to cannabis use.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found Dale-McCormick was protected from unfair dismissal and the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. The Commission considered the circumstances of the dismissal, including the timing of the drug test and the lack of a confirmatory laboratory test result. The employer did not follow proper procedures and the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. Compensation was ordered. The Commission noted inconsistencies in witness statements and preferred Dale-McCormick’s evidence regarding the timing of his admission of cannabis use.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure they follow fair dismissal procedures, especially when dealing with safety-related issues. The Commission emphasized the importance of allowing employees to respond to allegations and providing a proper opportunity to present their side of the story. Given the size of the business, the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not apply.
What it means for employees
Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should apply for a remedy promptly. The Commission considered the employee’s evidence and inconsistencies in the employer’s statements. The timing of admissions and the lack of confirmatory test results were relevant factors in the decision.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc347.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
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 by AI 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 →