€40,000 WRC Award: When Employee Drug Testing Becomes an Unfair Process

An employer may have genuine concerns about an employee’s health or fitness to work.

Those concerns can be particularly serious in a care setting involving vulnerable children.

However, a recent Workplace Relations Commission decision shows that an employer still needs evidence, contractual authority and a fair process before taking action.

The case involved a residential care manager who had worked for his employer since 2016.

After concerns arose about his health, a company director suspected possible drug use and insisted that he undergo a hair-strand drug test.

The employee did not refuse medical assessment or drug testing in general.

Instead, he attended the company doctor, agreed to a physical examination and provided blood for testing. He also offered to undergo blood and urine drug tests.

His objection concerned the employer’s demand for a hair-strand sample.

Despite this, the employer prevented him from returning to his normal role and later stopped paying his wages.

After several months without a resolution, the employee resigned and brought claims to the WRC.

The WRC upheld his constructive dismissal and Payment of Wages complaints.

The total award was:

€40,000

For employers, the lesson is clear:

A genuine safety concern does not give an employer unlimited power to decide how an employee must prove that they are fit for work.

WRC Case Reference

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052209
Payment of Wages Complaint: CA-00063813-001
Unfair Dismissal Complaint: CA-00063813-002
Adjudication Officer: Aideen Collard
Decision Date: 29 September 2026

Constructive dismissal award: €20,828
Payment of Wages award: €19,172
Total award: €40,000

The employee also brought an Employment Equality complaint, which he later withdrew.

What Happened?

The employee managed a residential care home for minors and earned approximately €65,000 per year.

He had worked for the organisation since September 2016 and had a blemish-free employment record.

In late 2023, a company director raised concerns about his health.

The employee explained that he had experienced low energy following Covid-19, family health concerns and a relationship break-up. However, he maintained that he remained fit for work.

Soon afterwards, the employer raised the possibility of drug use and requested medical testing.

The employee agreed to attend a medical practitioner.

He also agreed to blood and urine testing.

However, when he attended a testing facility, he discovered that the employer had specifically requested a hair sample.

He objected to that form of testing.

Later, he attended the company doctor, underwent a physical examination and provided blood for testing.

Importantly, the WRC found no evidence that a medical professional had said a hair-strand test was necessary.

Despite that, the employer continued to insist on it.

1. The Employee Did Not Refuse Drug Testing

This distinction is important for employers considering employee drug testing in Ireland.

It would be misleading to describe the case simply as:

“An employee refused a drug test.”

The employee had already agreed to:

• attend the company doctor;
• undergo a medical examination;
• provide a blood sample; and
• undergo blood and urine drug testing.

Instead, the dispute centred on one specific requirement: hair-strand testing.

The employer relied on clauses in the employee’s contract and handbook relating to medical examinations and drug testing.

However, the WRC found that those clauses did not give a company director the right to choose this particular form of testing.

Therefore, employers should not assume that a general drug-testing or medical clause allows management to require any test it chooses.

2. Start With the Contract and Policy

Before asking an employee to undergo medical or drug testing, HR should first check the organisation’s documents.

In particular, ask:

What does the employment contract allow?

What does the drug and alcohol policy say?

When can testing take place?

Who can refer an employee for assessment?

Who decides which medical tests are appropriate?

What happens if the employee refuses?

A broad clause allowing an employer to request a medical examination may not automatically cover every form of testing.

Therefore, the wording of the contract and policy matters.

In ADJ-00052209, the WRC found that the relevant provisions did not allow a director to insist personally on a hair-strand drug test.

3. Medical Decisions Need Medical Support

The employer maintained that the hair test formed part of the medical assessment required before the employee could return.

However, the WRC found that the company director, rather than a medical professional, was driving that requirement.

No medical evidence showed that the employee needed a hair-strand test.

That creates an important HR distinction.

Management can identify the workplace concern.

For example:

Is this employee medically fit to manage a residential care home safely?

The employer can then give that information to an appropriate medical professional.

However, management should be cautious about deciding for itself which medical procedure the employee must undergo.

A clearer process is:

Identify the workplace concern → Obtain professional medical advice → Make an employment decision based on that advice.

4. Suspicion Is Not a Finding

The company director suspected that the employee might have been misusing drugs.

However, the WRC found that the employer had no concrete evidence supporting those allegations.

No disciplinary investigation had established drug misuse.

Likewise, no medical professional had concluded that the employee had a drug problem.

Nevertheless, the employer repeatedly dealt with him on that basis.

For HR, there is an important difference between:

a concern

an allegation

and

a finding.

A reasonable concern may justify further investigation.

However, it does not allow an employer to treat an allegation as proven before that investigation takes place.

5. Safeguarding Concerns Still Require a Fair Process

The employer provided residential care to vulnerable young people.

Clearly, the organisation had serious safeguarding duties.

Therefore, it was reasonable for management to take genuine concerns about an employee’s fitness seriously.

The problem was not that the employer considered workplace safety.

Rather, the problem was how it dealt with the concern.

If an employer believes an employee may present an immediate risk, HR should establish:

• what the concern is;
• what evidence supports it;
• whether there is an immediate safety risk;
• what policy applies;
• whether temporary removal from duties is necessary;
• whether the employee should remain on pay;
• what investigation or medical assessment will follow; and
• what must happen before the employee returns.

In other words, safeguarding does not remove the need for a defined process.

6. Be Clear About the Employee’s Employment Status

Another major problem in this case was uncertainty about the employee’s status.

He repeatedly asked whether he was:

suspended

on sick leave

on another type of leave

or simply:

not being allowed to work.

The employer argued that it had not technically suspended him or placed him on leave.

However, the employee could not return to his normal duties.

That uncertainty created significant problems.

HR should always be clear about an employee’s status.

If the employee is suspended, confirm the suspension and explain its basis.

If a doctor has certified the employee unfit for work, follow the appropriate sick-leave process.

If the employee remains fit but management temporarily restricts their duties, explain why and set out what happens next.

Most importantly, do not leave an employee in an undefined position for months.

7. Stopping Pay Requires a Clear Basis

The employer stopped paying the employee from 10 January 2024.

However, the WRC found no contractual basis for withholding his wages.

The employee remained willing to work and was contractually entitled to his weekly pay.

Meanwhile, the employer prevented him from returning until he agreed to the hair test.

As a result, the employee succeeded in his Payment of Wages complaint.

The WRC awarded:

€16,328 in unpaid wages

plus

€2,844 in compensation.

That produced a total Payment of Wages award of:

€19,172

For employers, the practical point is simple:

Do not stop an employee’s pay unless you can identify the contractual or legal basis for doing so.

An unpaid suspension should never develop informally because management and the employee have reached an impasse.

8. Suspension Should Not Become a Punishment

Sometimes an employer may need to remove an employee temporarily from the workplace.

For example, suspension may help protect:

• vulnerable people;
• witnesses;
• evidence;
• other employees; or
• the integrity of an investigation.

However, suspension should normally support a process rather than replace one.

In this case, the employer did not complete a disciplinary investigation into alleged drug misuse.

Despite that, the employee remained away from his normal role and later lost his income.

Therefore, the practical consequence arrived before any process had established wrongdoing.

That creates a significant risk for employers.

9. Fitness to Work and Misconduct Are Different Issues

Employers should also distinguish between medical fitness and misconduct.

Fitness to work

The question is:

Can the employee safely perform their role?

This is mainly a medical or capability issue.

Misconduct

The question is:

Has the employee broken a workplace rule?

For example, has an employee attended work while under the influence of an intoxicant?

That is primarily a disciplinary issue.

Of course, both issues can arise at the same time.

However, they should still have clear processes.

If the concern relates to medical fitness, obtain suitable occupational-health or medical advice.

If evidence suggests misconduct, investigate that allegation fairly.

Do not use a fitness-to-work process as a substitute for a disciplinary investigation.

10. The Employment Position Should Match the Medical Evidence

The employer also suggested that the employee apply for illness-related social welfare support.

However, the employee maintained that he could not do so because no doctor had certified him unfit for work.

His own GP later examined him, carried out a random urine drug test and confirmed that he was fit for work.

Therefore, HR should make sure its employment position reflects the available medical evidence.

If the employer believes an employee is medically unfit but the employee’s doctor says otherwise, the solution may be further independent medical assessment.

It should not simply assume that the employee is on sick leave.

11. Supportive Language Cannot Replace Fair Procedure

Throughout the dispute, the employer described its actions as supportive.

For example, it offered financial help with rent and referred to possible rehabilitation support.

However, at the same time:

• management suspected the employee of drug misuse;
• the employee could not return to work;
• his wages stopped; and
• his return depended on agreeing to the disputed hair test.

The WRC was critical of that contradiction.

The wider lesson is useful.

A supportive tone does not make an unreasonable process reasonable.

Employers should certainly communicate with care and respect.

However, the underlying decision still needs evidence, authority and fair procedure.

12. The Employer Had Opportunities to Resolve the Dispute

Constructive-dismissal cases usually involve an important question:

Did the employee give the employer a reasonable opportunity to resolve the problem before resigning?

In this case, extensive correspondence took place over several months.

The employee repeatedly:

• said he was fit and willing to work;
• requested his medical results;
• questioned why his wages had stopped;
• challenged the basis for the hair test;
• offered alternative forms of drug testing;
• asked the employer to clarify his employment status; and
• later instructed solicitors.

Therefore, the WRC rejected the employer’s argument that the claim should fail because the employee had not completed its formal grievance procedure.

However, this does not mean employees can generally ignore internal grievance processes.

Instead, the WRC looked at the particular facts, including the reporting structure and the seniority of the person at the centre of the complaint.

13. Grievance Policies Need a Route for Complaints About Senior Leaders

This part of the decision also creates a useful governance lesson.

What happens if an employee’s complaint concerns:

• a director;
• an owner;
• the person leading HR; or
• the person named in the grievance procedure as the normal escalation point?

A good grievance policy should provide another route.

For example, an organisation could nominate:

• another director;
• a board member;
• an external HR adviser;
• an independent investigator; or
• another suitable senior person.

Otherwise, an employee may have no credible internal route to challenge the person making the decision.

14. Why the WRC Found Constructive Dismissal

Constructive dismissal generally places a significant burden on the employee.

The employee resigns and then argues that the employer’s conduct left no reasonable alternative.

Here, the WRC considered the overall pattern rather than one isolated decision.

It included:

• unsupported allegations of drug misuse;
• the demand for a specific hair test without a contractual or medical basis;
• preventing the employee from working;
• withholding wages;
• uncertainty about his employment status;
• failure to provide requested medical results;
• raising other performance and disciplinary concerns without investigation; and
• maintaining the same position despite repeated challenges.

Taken together, the WRC found that the employer had fundamentally breached the employment relationship.

As a result, the employee was entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal.

15. The €40,000 WRC Award

The WRC upheld two complaints.

Constructive dismissal — CA-00063813-002

The employee remained unemployed for approximately 13 weeks after his resignation.

The WRC awarded:

€16,328 for lost earnings

plus

€4,500 for a period of reduced earnings in his new employment.

Constructive dismissal award: €20,828

Payment of Wages — CA-00063813-001

The WRC found that the employer had no contractual basis for withholding wages between 10 January and 12 April 2024.

It awarded:

€16,328 in unpaid wages

plus

€2,844 in compensation.

Payment of Wages award: €19,172

Total Award:

€40,000

The WRC expressly confirmed the combined award of €40,000.

A Practical Employer Checklist

Before acting on concerns about an employee’s fitness or possible drug use, HR should ask:

Evidence

What objective information has triggered the concern?

Contract

What does the employee’s contract allow?

Policy

What does the organisation’s drug and alcohol policy say?

Medical advice

Has an appropriate medical professional advised what assessment is necessary?

Scope

Are we dealing with medical fitness, misconduct, or both?

Temporary measures

Do we genuinely need to remove the employee from duties?

Pay

What legal or contractual basis would allow us to stop wages?

Employee status

Does the employee clearly know whether they are suspended, sick, working or temporarily restricted?

Investigation

If misconduct is alleged, have we opened a proper investigation?

Communication

Are we clearly distinguishing suspicion from a proven finding?

Grievance

Can the employee raise concerns with somebody independent of the person involved?

Review

Are we actively reviewing the situation rather than allowing it to continue indefinitely?

The Practical Lesson for Employers

Employers responsible for vulnerable people must take genuine safety concerns seriously.

However, seriousness does not remove the need for a fair process.

Instead:

Identify the concern.

Check the contract and policy.

Obtain appropriate medical input.

Separate fitness-to-work issues from misconduct.

Use temporary measures only when necessary.

Do not stop wages without a clear basis.

Finally, if the employee challenges the process, examine that challenge rather than simply repeating the original demand.

The problem in this case was not that the employer took workplace safety seriously.

The problem was that suspicion developed into a prolonged employment decision without enough medical, contractual or procedural support.

How Employment Matters Can Help

Employment Matters supports employers dealing with sensitive workplace issues, including:

• workplace investigations;
• disciplinary and grievance processes;
• performance and capability management;
• workplace mediation;
• suspension and dismissal;
• defending employment claims; and
• manager training and workshops.

Where concerns involve health, fitness or suspected misconduct, choosing the right process early can prevent a genuine management concern from developing into a much larger employment dispute.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.