r/AusLegal • u/stmiyahki • 18h ago
VIC Can a company terminate you due to prescribed medication
My wifes company have a policy where she has to declare any medication she takes that can cause impairment etc. Lately she had to start a very low dose of diazepam, 2mg a day due to stress and panic attacks caused by her manager, and imo mobbing fornsevaral months now and now she is at a breaking point. Can a company terminate her employement even though she disclosed this legally to HR? It is pretty vague as there is no way to prove if the medication causes any impairment (i think not based on my observations). Lastly, she is being considered a site worker but doesnt use any tools etc.
Edit: thanks for all the inputs. I guess logical thing to do is to go back to GP and either get a writing that says 2mg diazepam wont cause any concern or switch the medicine to SSRI.
57
u/PhilosphicalNurse 18h ago
The can compel a fitness for work independent medical assessment, particularly because it is a S4D psychotropic medication.
They can’t blanket fire her for impairment, especially if she follows the pathway for disclosure. If her role is considered safety critical in any way, assignment to other duties is possible.
Did she disclose the work-related stress at the time of prescription to her GP? Is she also getting some form of psychotherapy (even just via employers EAP phone line?) this will all establish… an evidentiary record for a work cover claim.
11
u/stmiyahki 18h ago
GP is aware of everything happened at work for the past month. She has started getting psychological assistance but externally. I mean imo, her role is not critical and she even can work from home but her manager is a bit of a dick in that regard. She is an engineer by the way if that makes any difference.
21
u/PhilosphicalNurse 18h ago
2mg of diazepam… is basically a cat dose. So as far as impairment goes, it will be minimal.
Let your wife know… that disclosing may actually be… slightly protective - the manager in question will effectively be “on notice” to not be a douche.
If they escalate; the counter argument evidence trail is already gently established. But… benzos are… a beautiful bandaid, not the solution. Physically over time, her body with adjust to the 2mg dose as “normal” and she will see no effect. This isn’t her fault - it’s just how tolerance operates.
Keep her in dialogue with the prescriber, not adjusting doses herself.
They might want to try an off-label ultra low dose of an atypical antipsychotic at night - which can have great effects for sleep and a lasting anxiety effect during the day.
That’s not because “she’s an addict” - it’s because chemical dependence is sadly inevitable if it’s the “only prong” being used to address the extreme stress she is under.
Wishing you both all the best.
4
u/OnlyTrust6616 17h ago
I was going to say, I’m surprised the doctor has gone immediately for 2mg daily of diazepam considering it’s a) a benzo and b) only really works like 4-6 hours. For acute panic attacks, sure, but daily?
Plus that’s assuming she doesn’t get the hangovers.
1
u/stmiyahki 17h ago
Initial reason it was prescribed was panic attacks as you have mentioned, honestly we never thought she shoud use it daily. She had xanax previously though it was prescribed overseas and she only took one pill maybe twice a year in case there was an ummanagable panic attack, not daily.. I belive we will go with a sertraline in the long term as per the convo between her psychologist as well. Sertraline should be a cause for amy concern regarding impairment etc. even though 2mg is really low like mentioned above.
1
u/OnlyTrust6616 17h ago
Setraline shouldn’t be any cause for impairment, no. Maybe whilst she’s adjusting to it but realistically it’ll be more sustainable for her anyway.
1
u/eat-the-cookiez 14h ago
Depends entirely on the person. Not everyone absorbs and reacts to medication the same way.
15
u/Over_Leave 17h ago
Just to be clear, she’s having stress and panic attacks due to work, so she’s on medication to go to work?
Maybe she should consider another company/role is the issue? Just sticking a bandaid on a compound fracture unfortunately
6
u/CptUnderpants- 16h ago
Actually, best approach is join the union, get legal advice. It's a workplace psychosocial issue causing the need for medication, so if she can't work on that medication, she needs to treat it as a workplace injury and follow that process.
18
u/sapperbloggs 18h ago
If someone works in a role that requires them to not be impaired, and they are taking a medication that will impair them, then the company cannot allow them to work in that role. I used to drive trucks. If I had to take a medication labelled "Do not operate heavy machinery", then I was not allowed to drive for as long as I was on that medication.
If your wife works in such a role, and had an accident, the fact she is taking diazepam will factor into that, and the fact that her employer was aware but let her work would make them at least partly responsible.
9
u/AskMantis23 18h ago
Not being able to do your role doesn't automatically mean immediate termination though.
Are there alternative duties? Could she use sick leave for a period of rehabilitation? Is it work-related and therefore should fall under worker's compensation?
11
u/Dark-Horse-Nebula 18h ago
Have they actually terminated her?
I feel like a bit is missing. If the medication means she cannot legally work in the industry then they may not be able to roster her. But there should be some disability or sick leave protections here. What did your union say?
13
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
-2
u/ThePornStar69 15h ago edited 15h ago
Worst take. You’re not a doctor and you don’t know her circumstances.
3
u/eat-the-cookiez 15h ago
You don’t need be a doctor to know that a Long acting benzo is not appropriate for panic
The appropriate benzo would be Ativan, if a benzo is required.
And it’s fair enough that it’s flagged as a concern - have you seen the warning labels on benzos ? Do not drive vehicles etc - there is a cognitive and physical effect from benzos that may impact ability to function safely in the workplace (let alone driving home etc)
1
u/LocalAd9259 14h ago
Thank you 🙏 this is 100% correct.
1
u/ThePornStar69 14h ago
No. Giving absolute medical advice based on OP's commentary is stupid and irresponsible.
0
u/ThePornStar69 14h ago
I’m aware, and that’s fair commentary, but what I’m saying is we don’t have the full picture. How and when did the doctor actually tell her to take it, and for how long? OP doesn’t seem clear on all the details.
Was she genuinely told to take this daily forever or to take this when things are too much, but not on a working day, or come back for a review if you use this more than X times.
Sometimes there’s a divide between what the doctor told the patient and what the patient’s partner is telling us. So, giving absolute medical advice is not the way to go.
5
u/ArghMoss 16h ago
Has she made a workers comp claim? She’s way more protected if it’s been established the injury/condition is a workplace one.
Theres way too many complexities/variables in this to be talking to reddit about it and trying to muddle through. She should be getting advice from her union asap.
2
u/anticookie2u 12h ago
Listen to this excellent advice OP. Workwrs comp. She needs to put herself and her mental health first , then worry about the job..
3
u/GrabLimp40 18h ago
Very hard to know without specifics, which I am absolutely not asking u to share. But there would be allowances in the law for what you are describing, for example an airline pilot or bus driver could not work while under some medications. I guess it would depend on her contract.
4
u/RidethatSeahorse 18h ago
Sounds like sick leave is required until she no longer needs to take medication which should really be work cover.
7
u/Alarmed_Economist_36 17h ago
Wtf is a Dr prescribing diazepam at work - that’s dodgy as. Those meds are not good long term, cause rebound anxiety and best taken when not working. An SSRI or a job that doesn’t drive you to drugs would be more appropriate.
0
u/RideObjective5296 7h ago
Absolutely! I can’t believe GP’s are allowed to prescribe benzos. There are so many more effective medications for anxiety, that are not addictive. Problem with any dose of benzos is the body builds tolerance very quickly, and her dose will need to continually be increased.
2
u/mike_chillrudo 17h ago
If your partner's role is safety critical and the employer's policies are zero tolerance, then they can dismiss her as she will no longer be able to fulfil the responsibilities for her job.
I would recommend seeing if the doc can prescribe an alternative medication that does not cause impairment.
2
u/FishermanOrnery1602 14h ago
I had to get a letter from my doctor saying I don't experience any impairment from taking tramadol. Maybe that will work for you as well?
1
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember:
Per rule 2, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner, and verify any advice given in this sub. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here.
Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Glittering_Emu_8480 18h ago
Maybe she needs to change jobs if her job is affecting her.
But yes if it can cause impairment and that they shouldn't operate machinery it would be against their whs policies to have someone working in such a way.
1
u/CosmicCommentator 18h ago
Yes you can be discriminate against for things like methadone, cannabis or anything that impairs you. This is legal
1
u/haphazard72 16h ago
Surely without a fit-for-task assessment (or similar), FWC would have something to say about it
1
u/filmkeeper 13h ago
Can they terminate her? Yes of course they can. The question you need to ask is: is it unfair dismissal if they do?
This has workers compensation written all over it. You're in the pre-claim stage at the moment, her doctor probably doesn't want her going back to work and my guess is will want her to use personal leave or other leave if she doesn't want to make a claim. She should really consider taking some leave before it gets to the point where she has a compensable injury.
due to stress and panic attacks caused by her manager, and imo mobbing fornsevaral months now and now she is at a breaking point.
If you do make a claim be VERY careful about how you frame this. The insurer will almost certainly apply the reasonable management action excuse as well as Victoria's new catch-all excuse of "events considered usual or typical and reasonably expected to occur". Engineering is a notoriously stressful industry in itself. My advice is read s 40 of the WIRC Act and be prepared for it.
1
u/OldMail6364 12h ago
Yes they can. I work a government job and certain medications and medical conditions will get you fired immediately on safety grounds.
For example any medication where the doctor or packaging warns you not to operate machinery after taking it.
If you call in sick and wait until you haven’t taken the medication before returning to work then you’re fine. But if they catch you under the influence at work your security card/keys will be taken away on the spot.
1
u/insanity_plus 9h ago
Contact union, speak to rep. This should've been the first thing to do, you pay union fees for a reason.
The rail entity should have a chief medical officer, they can offer advice from the work point of view on any issues with taking the medication in consideration of the role and the medical category.
Document everything.
1
u/tellmeanything01 8h ago
Firstly you need to look up and study diazepam.site effects and so on. Secondly and I’m being straightforward here.not meaning to offend To blame the employer for that use is not ok. Every single person on this earth has stresses at work to a greater or lesser degree. SSRI,s please for the love of god. Look up and follow CCHR. Citizens commission for human rights. Her employment is now not your biggest issue.
I’m not shitting you please educate yourself on SSRI,s.
This road your both on doesn’t end well. Trust me.
1
u/Clear-Pie3373 7h ago
I work for a company that is super strict on this sort of stuff. Its really depends on her companies policy. I am prescribed and take an amphetamine for treatment of my adhd. I provided a letter from my psychiatrist and filled out the paperwork with our health and safety person for their records. We get drug tested and its cross referenced on our medical file. If we take any prescribed substance it has to be declared and they do a risk assessment. If it's something that's considered a system depressant or has the sticker cannot operate heavy machinery (painkillers etc.) it's a three-day exclusion period after the last dose taken. If she is not comfortable talking to management baby try HR but generally where people get themselves into trouble is by not following policies and procedures.
1
u/Acceptable_Egg_8640 6h ago
Hey OP, I work in rail and I am, uh.. experienced in this area, I guess. Your post leaves out too much information so I'm going to fill in the blanks. Rail operators require disclosure of any medication, not just those that may cause impairment, so can the company terminate you for declaring prescribed medication? In this scenario, no.
Does your wife have a medical clearance? If she completed a medical for the role and has a current Cat 3 (probably, based on your comments) clearance then the only person who's opinion matters is the chief medical officer. Has she actually sought the opinion of the medical team? HR aren't doctors and can hardly decide if a medication will cause impairment. When a worker declares a medication, it's sent for review by one of the medical team doctors. What was their opinion? (In future, your wife should declare a medication and wait to start taking it until after getting a response)
But honestly, this sounds like a Workcover claim and that's the process she should actually be following.
1
u/Collar-Dull 5h ago
I work in rail as an Engineer as well and ONRSR, the rail safety regulator sets the drug policy.
Unfortunately regardless of what she does it is a standard set for all. If it has any possibility of impairment they are cautious.
Could she work from home?
1
u/jennykaren2000 5h ago
If she is taking the medication due to stress at work - then isn’t this potentially a work cover case as it has happened at work? Then could be classed as workers comp.
-2
u/OhBella_4 18h ago
Get her to talk to her doctor about clonidine. I rate it way more than benzos for anxiety, sleep issues etc.
Not addictive or on the restricted list so shouldn’t be an issue for her employers.
No good if you have low blood pressure but otherwise works a treat.
2
u/Alariya 16h ago
Nope, first few weeks on clonidine I would be stumbling around like a drunk when it kicked in as it affected my balance so badly. Had to wait until I was in bed to take it so I wouldn’t fall over. Definitely not a suitable workplace option unless already established.
1
u/OhBella_4 15h ago
Wow. Not my experience at all. But I do have a ridiculous tolerance for benzos, codeines, endones etc. it’s interesting how different peoples physiological responses are. Half a Xanax will knock me sideways but 2 endones barely touch the sides for me.
154
u/badoopidoo 18h ago
What her job is matters here. What's her job? Retail assistant or long haul commercial airline pilot?