Maxwell Parks v WorkPac Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2316

[2025] FWC 2316

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Maxwell Parks
v

WorkPac Pty Ltd

(U2025/1247)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 8 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – non negative drug test result returned – confusion regarding applicable policy of site or employer – valid reason – failure to consider all of the circumnstances – termination was harsh – compensation awarded

On 5 February 2025, Maxwell Parks (Parks / the Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy, alleging he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with WorkPac Pty Ltd (Workpac / the Respondent). The matter was listed for hearing on 16 May 2025. Directions were issued for the filing of submissions and parties filed further material.

The Applicant provided a witness statement dated 22 April 2025,[1] and also filed a statement in reply on 9 May 2025.[2] Ms Jaimee Mckinley, Site Manager, Batchfire Callide and Boundary Hill for the Respondent, provided a witness statement dated 1 May 2025.[3] Mr Quarmby was unavailable to attend the hearing, so the Respondent withdrew its reliance on his statement.

Mr Daniel Gosewisch, an in-house lawyer for Workpac appeared on behalf of the Respondent, and Ms Danielle Cruikshank, a friend who was not a lawyer or a paid agent, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant advised that the SECURETEC document filed as part of his evidence and appearing at page 40 and 41 of the Court Book was the wrong one, as and it should have been SECURETEC DRUG WIPE 6S. The correct document was subsequently provided.

Relevant Documents and Policies

WorkPac Fitness for Work Policy

“WorkPac is committed to providing and maintaining a safe and healthy working environment in which our employees, FTMs and contractors (employees) are not exposed to hazards arising from fatigue, stress or the use or abuse of alcohol or drugs.

When reporting for work, employees must be fit for work, including being physically and mentally fit as well rested, to ensure that they can perform their duties in a safe manner.

Employees are prohibited from working when under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including illicit and prescription drugs that have a capacity to impair an individual from performing the duties of their position in a safe manner.

WorkPac proactively undertakes activities to identify and appropriately deal with any of employees who may be unfit for work. Our processes are transparent, fair, sensitive, and legally compliant.

WorkPac has developed and implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and a code of conduct to effectively, fairly, and proactively manage the identification and management of workplace conditions and instances where employees are deemed unfit for work. Employees shall abide by all of the requirements set out in these documents to ensure personal safety and wellbeing.

WorkPac’s policies and procedures address fitness for work issues, including:

·Requiring employees undertake drug and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maxwell Parks v WorkPac Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 2316
Decision Date: 8 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maxwell Parks (Parks) applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy, alleging he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with WorkPac Pty Ltd (WorkPac). The Commission found there was a valid reason for dismissal because Parks had presented to work to operate heavy machinery for the Assignment at the Mine two days in a row with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in his system, which was a breach of WorkPac's policies. However, the Commission found the decision to terminate Parks' employment was harsh and unfair because WorkPac did not take into account all of the circumstances. In particular, the Commission found there were procedural failures in the testing methodology used by Batchfire, the mine at which Parks was working, which had worked to the detriment of Parks. The Commission awarded Parks compensation of $37,222.50.

Orders