A NSW truck driver summarily dismissed for a “low reading” of cannabis has won back his job at the Fair Work Commission. Despite the employer’s zero tolerance drug policy, the Commission found the worker was not impaired at the time of the test. It ruled that the employer’s rigid approach resulted in a “harsh” dismissal that failed to account for his 27 years of unblemished service.
In this article, we look at the events of the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim Mr. Glenn Brew v Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we’ll look at the case of a truckie who won $34,000 after being unfairly sacked for a positive drug test. These two Fair Work cases demonstrate that even if you have a positive drug test, if there is no proof of actual impairment, a dismissal can be a disproportionate response.
Truck driver wins job back after joint at dinner party
Glenn Brew started working for engineering and construction firm Downer EDI Works and its predecessors in 1998. At the time of his termination of employment, the 56-year-old was an area supervisor working out of the NSW regional town of Narrandera. He had significant safety responsibilities, including overseeing bitumen seals, infrastructure audits and designing seals. For 27 years, Mr. Brew had an unblemished disciplinary record.
The events that led to his termination of employment began on Friday 22 August 2025, when Mr. Brew hosted a dinner for friends at his home. A guest produced a cannabis cigarette, and Mr. Brew inhaled from it twice. Concerned about work on Monday, on Saturday Mr. Brew went to the chemist to buy a self-testing kit for THC. He tested himself on Sunday before driving to a job site in Forbes. His self-testing kit came back with a negative result for THC.
Unfair dismissal NSW: Terminated for serious misconduct
However, during a random drug test at work on Monday 25 August 2025, Mr. Brew returned a non-negative result. A subsequent laboratory test detected THC metabolites at 41 µg/L. While this was above the lab confirmation cut-off of 15 µg/L, it was lower than the on-site screening cut-off of 55 µg/L. Mr. Brew was stood down and eventually fired for serious misconduct on 15 September 2025. He subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Employer ignored manager’s plea for leniency
Mr. Brew’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim detailed how he pleaded with Downer EDI Works to keep his job. He said that he believed he was OK to work that day as his self-test had been negative. He argued that he was not intoxicated nor impaired to work at the time of the on-site test. Mr. Brew also believed that the on-site test kit had already been opened when it was handed to him.
He took issue with the fact that the lab result was below the on-site cut off. Because of this, he believed he should have been retested, as required under Downer EDI Works’ policy. Mr. Brew did however admit to his actions. He highlighted his unblemished record at the company for almost three decades, explaining that the incident was “out of character.” Mr. Brew also said that he was getting mental health support to help him with his cannabis use. He offered to take regular cannabis tests in order to keep his job, highlighting his past efforts to always follow the rules.
Company was conflicted when sacking worker for serious misconduct
Internal evidence presented during Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings revealed a divide within Downer EDI Works’ management. Mr. Brew’s direct manager initially recommended a final warning rather than termination of employment for serious misconduct. This was based on Mr. Brew’s long service and the “low reading” of the test. However, he was pressured by a senior HR advisor, who said that the manager would need to provide a reason not to sack Mr. Brew.
Downer EDI Works argued to the Fair Work Commission that as a supervisor, Mr. Brew had a “greater responsibility” to follow the company’s policies. The company said that it had a “zero tolerance” approach to drug use, noting it had summarily dismissed 23 employees for positive drug tests in the previous two financial years. Downer EDI Works argued that making an exception for Mr. Brew would “undermine” its zero tolerance policy.
Fair Work: Zero tolerance does not mandate dismissal
Mr. Brew’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. It found that while the positive test provided a valid reason for termination of employment. The Commission slammed Downer EDI Works for misapplying its own policies. It noted that having a zero tolerance approach does not mean that a sacking “must follow every breach” of the drug and alcohol policy.
The Commission also found that the drug testing procedure was not followed correctly. It noted that Mr. Brew was not offered a second on-site test which “may have not led to a positive result.” The Commission also accepted that his laboratory result was lower than the on-site cut-off. It concluded that the testing “should have ended” with the on-site test giving a negative result.
Termination of employment was harsh for valued employee
Regarding the issue of safety, the Fair Work Commission accepted expert evidence that Mr. Brew was not impaired. It noted that he had not breached Downer EDI Works’ drug and alcohol policy because he was not “under the influence” at work. The Commission ruled that the company failed to adequately consider mitigating factors when deciding to sack Mr. Brew. This included his 27 years of service and his “laudable” cooperation during the investigation.
Ultimately, the Commission found that Downer EDI Works’ “unqualified” sacking of a “valued” employee was harsh. Reinstatement was deemed appropriate, as both managers had initially considered options other than termination of employment. The company was therefore ordered to restore Mr. Brew to his position with continuity of service and back pay for lost wages.
Truckie’s weekend joint sacking ends with $34k unfair dismissal payout
Another recent example of a worker sacked for a positive drug test is the unfair dismissal VIC case Brayden Dale-McCormick v SLEEPEEZEE BEDDING AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. [2026]. Mr. Dale-McCormick began working as a truck driver for Sleepeezee Bedding Australia in July 2024. The event that led to his termination of employment took place 7 May 2025. While driving for the company on a Wednesday morning, Mr. Dale-Mc Cormick was pulled over by police for a random drug and alcohol test. He underwent an oral fluid test which came back positive for a “prohibited substance,” according to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim proceedings. Mr. Dale-Mc Cormick was told by police that he could not drive for 24 hours.
He immediately called his manager, Jesse Ross, while still in the truck on the side of the freeway. Mr. Dale-McCormick admitted to his manager that he had smoked “a joint of cannabis” socially over the prior weekend. While he initially said this occurred on Sunday because he was “frazzled,” he later clarified it was Saturday night. He explained that he believed the substance would be undetectable by the time he resumed work on Monday evening.
Unfair dismissal VIC: Employer advertised job before termination meeting
On 9 May 2025, while Mr. Dale-McCormick was waiting for further instructions, Sleepeezee management drafted a formal letter of termination. On the same day, the company posted an online advertisement to fill a driver vacancy. Mr. Ross later messaged Mr. Dale-McCormick to schedule a meeting for 13 May 2025. The manager told him that “you broke the law and we need to discuss it.” Mr. Dale-McCormick responded by saying, “In other words you’re firing me.” He told his manager to “just be direct and honest with me as I have been with you.”
Mr. Dale-McCormick later told the Fair Work Commission that he was fired “almost immediately” during the meeting on 13 May 2025.” He was handed a termination of employment letter that had been prepared four days earlier. The letter claimed that he had breached the company’s drug and alcohol policy and posed a serious and imminent risk to road users. At the time of the sacking, Sleepeezee did not have a laboratory result confirming the use of cannabis. Mr. Dale-McCormick had also not been charged with a criminal offence. Feeling he had been hard done by, he lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Truckie said there was no proof he was impaired
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Dale-McCormick argued that the preliminary roadside drug test was not proof of impairment. He argued the test was merely a preliminary screening involving an oral fluid. This test, he argued, only indicated the presence of a substance, not the level of impairment. Mr. Dale-McCormick claimed that Sleepeezee’s policy required an employee to be “under the influence,” which it could not prove based on a preliminary test.
He further argued that his termination of employment was a pre-determined outcome. He pointed to the fact that his job had been advertised before he was even given a chance to explain his side of the story. Mr. Dale-Mc Cormick highlighted Sleepeezee’s repeated refusal to provide him with a copy of its drug and alcohol policy, despite his multiple written requests. He maintained that it was impossible to follow or be judged against a policy that his employer actively withheld from him.
Employer claimed worker was safety risk
In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Sleepeezee argued that the positive preliminary test created an “unacceptable” safety risk. The company maintained that Mr. Dale-Mc Cormick’s conduct had “materially impacted” its interests by leaving a truck stranded and forcing the business to make alternative arrangements at short notice. The employer defended its pre-dated termination letter as a “precautionary measure” for administrative efficiency, rather than evidence of a pre-determined outcome.
In addition to the positive drug reading, Sleepeezee also initially claimed that Mr. Dale-McCormick had consistently failed to meet delivery schedules and work completion deadlines. However, the company later admitted in oral evidence that this did not factor into the termination of employment decision.
Fair Work: Positive roadside test did not prove impairment
Mr. Dale-McCormick’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in September 2025. It found that there was no evidence that he was impaired while driving. The Commission found that a screening test indicating a drug “may” be present fell “far short” of proving he was actually impaired. It was therefore concluded that the employer had not proven that Mr. Dale-McCormick was a serious and imminent risk to other road users.
The Commission also found the termination process was procedurally unfair. It found that Sleepeezee had decided on termination of employment days before the dismissal meeting. The Commission said that instead of termination, the company could have opted to educate Mr. Dale-McCormick on its drug policy and require him to submit to a program of testing.
Huge unfair dismissal payout ordered
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission ruled that Mr. Dale-McCormick’s sacking had been harsh and unreasonable. Because reinstatement was deemed inappropriate, the Commission ordered Sleepeezee to pay him $31,304 plus superannuation. The final award included a 30% reduction due to Mr. Dale-McCormick’s “poor judgement” in using cannabis, which had left Sleepeezee’s truck stranded for 24 hours.
Read more: Botched Drug Test Ends with $37K Unfair Dismissal Payout
When your job ends, your rights don’t
We at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) work with employees nationwide on unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, workplace bullying and Fair Work general protections claims. Whether you are facing a hostile work environment or an unlawful termination, we can help you get the compensation you deserve.
Strict 21-day submission deadlines apply for Fair Work unfair dismissal claim applications, so contact us now on 1300 766 700 for your free and confidential initial consultation.
