Cadbury chocolate factory job goes up in smoke after worker weeded out over drug test

A former Cadbury confectioner has waged an unfair dismissal battle after he was sacked for refusing a drug test, when he’d smoked a joint the night before.

A Cadbury confectioner lost his job after refusing a drug test. Picture: Matt Thompson

A former Cadbury chocolate maker has fought his employer after he was fired for refusing a drug test, when he’d smoked a joint the night before.

Confectioner Brayden Stacey worked at the Claremont chocolate factory from 2016 until he was sacked in December last year, before taking action for unfair dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission heard that Mr Stacey was randomly selected to undergo a drug and alcohol test about 7am on October 12, 2023.

Mr Stacey told the commission that he’d “smoked a joint of marijuana to help me sleep” the night before.

He said he’d sent a text message to his supervisor advising he was going home, advising him that: “gonna have to go home sick, hate to do it. But had a few things I shouldn’t have last night. I know it’ll come up on the test so [I’ll] be told to go home either way. I feel fine and capable enough to do my job though, no issues there just know it’ll come back positive”.

Mr Stacey’s supervisor replied “OK”, with Mr Stacey then waiting in the “smoko hall” for about half an hour before leaving work about 8am.`

The factory’s human resources adviser messaged Mr Stacey later that day, advising him that he was suspended on pay immediately while the matter was investigated.

Amanda McRoy, who acts in the role of people lead at Claremont and Burnie, gave evidence before the commission that Mondelez – the company that has owned Cadbury since 2010 – had a drug and alcohol policy to manage the “high-risk” factory environment.

The Cadbury factory at Claremont. Picture: Matt Thompson

She said the factory used moving conveyor belts, which could present a risk of injury to employees not thinking clearly, along with chemicals used for cleaning and various hot surfaces.

Ms McRoy said chocolate was a slippery substance due to its fat content, and awareness was required to avoid slips and falls.

She also said safety standards were important to ensure product cleanliness and quality – and said Mr Stacey had received training on the Mondelez drug and alcohol policy on a number of occasions.

Mr Stacey argued he hadn’t received the training, and that a signature on the policy was not his signature – but the commission said there was evidence he’d attended.

In response to a show-cause letter from the company, Mr Stacey said he was not under the influence while he was on shift, “it was just in my system from the night before”.

Commissioner Tim Lee found he had “rather uninformed views” about his level of impairment.

“He had no idea of the extent of THC in his bloodstream and the level of consequent impairment,” he said.

Commissioner Lee found his level of impairment was unknown as no test was taken on the day in question, that his behaviour constituted serious misconduct, and that his dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Follow @ambervwilson