Manager awarded $63,500 after Fair Work Commission finds dismissal over breath test was unfair

A Sydney woman has been awarded $63,500 after the Fair Work Commission found she was unfairly dismissed for refusing an alcohol and drug test following a lengthy work lunch.

Deputy President Tony Slevin ruled that Multiquip, a transport company, acted "unreasonably" in dismissing Chantelle Tamati from a management role at its head office on April 14. The commission found there was no valid reason for the dismissal and that the company had not clearly established lawful grounds for ordering the test.

The commission heard Ms. Tamati had attended a four-hour lunch on April 10 with two colleagues at a licensed premises near the office. When the three employees returned to work, one colleague became "disruptive in the office," made a phone call to a company director and was asked to undertake an alcohol breath test; he refused and subsequently resigned, the FWC was told.

After that incident, the director asked that Ms. Tamati and the remaining colleague undergo alcohol and drug testing. Ms. Tamati was taken into a meeting room with an HR manager and the company's national compliance manager and told she needed to take a test. She told the commissioners she had eaten garlic pizza and had one alcoholic drink and soda water at lunch; one of the managers later described the drink as a Jim Beam and Coke.

According to evidence presented to the FWC, Ms. Tamati refused the breath test and said she felt she was being "tarnished by association." The HR manager told the commission the company suspected she had consumed alcohol while at lunch and said it had a "duty of care" to ensure she was not under the influence and could drive home safely. The national compliance manager also testified that Ms. Tamati had been "acting out of character." Ms. Tamati said she felt the conversation became an interrogation and asked on what grounds the test was being requested.

Mr. Slevin said the company's policy did allow for random alcohol screening but found the grounds for requiring Ms. Tamati to take the test on this occasion were unclear. "I am not convinced the direction to take the test was reasonable and lawful," he wrote. "If the direction to Ms Tamati to take the test was made in accordance with the policy, then it would be a reasonable and lawful direction. But my assessment of the evidence is that the grounds for requesting the test … was not made clear to Ms Tamati."

Ms. Tamati was told she would be suspended with pay if she refused the test and would have to attend a formal meeting later; she was dismissed for "serious misconduct" at a disciplinary meeting four days after the lunch. She was out of work for four weeks after the dismissal and later took a new job that paid $27,000 less than her role at Multiquip, the commission noted when assessing compensation.

The Fair Work Commission awarded her $63,500. The decision orders compensation for the consequences of the unfair dismissal, reflecting lost earnings and other impacts identified by the tribunal.

Both Multiquip and Ms. Tamati were contacted for comment by the Daily Mail. The commission's written determination sets out the factual findings and legal reasoning behind the award and the finding that the dismissal lacked a valid basis under the circumstances presented to the tribunal.