An unreasonable direction has resulted in a $64k payout for an unfairly dismissed worker

A recent decision handed down by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) involving a $64,000 payout to an employee who was unfairly dismissed for refusing a breath test shines a spotlight on the crucial importance of transparent workplace policies, effective communication, and proper adherence to disciplinary procedures.

Here, our experts explain the case of Ms Chantelle Tamati v MQT Pty Ltd [25] FWC 2607, why proper, compliant processes are essential in every people management decision, and the importance of water-tight workplace policies. 

Long lunch turned into bigger problems: the details of this case

The incident began during a lunchtime outing on 10 April 2025, where Ms Tamati and two colleagues enjoyed a four-hour lunch at a licensed venue. When they returned, one of the colleagues was observed to be exhibiting disruptive behaviour in the office, prompting the MQT Pty Ltd (MQT) director to request a breath test be conducted. The colleague refused and resigned immediately. The incident escalated when the business’ National Compliance Manager suggested testing all three individuals who attended the lunch.

Ms. Tamati was called in by the HR Manager, expecting a discussion about her colleague’s well-being, but was instead asked to take a drug and alcohol test. While she admitted to having one drink at lunch, she questioned the inconsistent explanations provided, which ranged from a ‘random post-incident protocol’ to ‘suspicion’ of her behaviour. Feeling ambushed, she repeatedly sought clarification and requested the company’s policy, which was eventually provided without clear justification for its application. Frustrated by her inquiries, MQT suspended her and later dismissed her for alleged misconduct tied to her refusal to comply with the test.

Refusal upheld, Court says it was an unreasonable direction

The FWC found that MQT failed to provide a valid reason for Ms Tamati’s dismissal, with inconsistent explanations for the breath test. The company didn’t initially provide its drug and alcohol policy, failed to reference specific provisions justifying the test, and relied on unconvincing claims of unusual behaviour that didn’t align with recognised signs of intoxication.

Additionally, the FWC criticised MQT for not exploring alternatives to dismissal and for procedural shortcomings, deeming the test directive unreasonable and the dismissal neither sound nor defensible. The lack of clarity, fairness, and adherence to proper processes ultimately rendered the termination unfair.

Deputy President Slevin concluded that the direction to take the breath test was unreasonable, and the subsequent dismissal was neither sound nor defensible. The award of $64,000 in compensation accounted for Ms Tamati’s salary loss, reduced income from her new job, and other financial impacts resulting from her dismissal.

Always follow procedurally fair and compliant processes – and consult the experts!

Policies are powerful tools that employers can use to outline the standards and expectations of the company and enforce those expectations. Businesses must understand what the best process for dealing with them is so they can avoid unfair dismissal risks.

A robust drug and alcohol policy can go a long way to not only allow for drug and alcohol testing to be performed but also give the employer the power to take action against employees who refuse to complete testing. Citation HR Software allows you to download and customise a drug and alcohol policy, plus many of others.

Need some advice about drug and alcohol policies? Contact us for a confidential, no-obligation chat.