Discipline and procedural fairness after a cannabis-related breach

Last verified: 2026-07-29

A valid reason is half a case. The other half is process — and process is where employers with strong facts still manage to lose.

The sequence that holds up

1. Secure the evidence properly. Confirmatory laboratory result, chain-of-custody paperwork, the policy version in force, the signed acknowledgement, the disclosure records. Gaps here are exploited later.
2. Put the allegations in writing — specific conduct, specific policy clauses — and give a genuine opportunity to respond with support person access. “Show cause” done as theatre, with the outcome pre-decided, reads exactly that way in cross-examination.
3. Actually weigh the response. A prescription produced at this stage does not erase a non-disclosure breach, but it changes the harshness analysis: length of service, record, honesty when confronted, personal impact. In Mills, the Commission found a valid reason and still carefully weighed harshness — the employer won because it had considered alternatives, including medical evidence and whether the role could be performed safely.
4. Consider alternatives before dismissal — adjusted duties, redeployment, a managed return under medical guidance — and document why each was or wasn’t reasonably practicable. This step is simultaneously your unfair-dismissal harshness answer and your discrimination defence.
5. Decide proportionately and communicate in writing. Consistency matters: the worker dismissed for what others got warnings for is a live unfairness argument.

The three process failures we keep seeing

• Screening-result discipline — acting before laboratory confirmation.
• Policy-of-the-mind enforcement — disciplining against expectations that appear nowhere in the written policy the worker acknowledged.
• Punishing the disclosure — treating a worker who came forward worse than one who was caught, which teaches the workforce the only lesson you don’t want taught.