$24k win for pharmacist accused of lolly theft

A pharmacy assistant has been granted nearly $24,000 in compensation by the Fair Work Commission after she was summarily dismissed for unsubstantiated allegations of stealing confectionery from work.

In his April decision, Fair Work commissioner Damian Sloan ordered a pharmacy owner to pay an employee $23,960.86 plus superannuation in compensation after rejecting the employer’s allegations of theft.

Doc Pty Limited (DPL) terminated the pharmacist without notice on 23 September 2025 for “serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal” after she was unable to produce receipts for confectionery allegedly stolen from the pharmacy.

The pharmacist’s 14-year career at Docs John Hunter Hospital Pharmacy was unblemished.

At the hearing in February, the pharmacist told the commission that it was common practice for staff at DPL to consume food items off the shelves during their shift and pay for them by the end of their shift – a practice that was known and tolerated, she submitted.

DPL owner Aleksandar Gavriloski told the commission that the pharmacist stole confectionery on four separate occasions, showing CCTV footage to the court.

According to the footage, the pharmacist took a Byron Bay cookie in the morning and paid for it that same afternoon.

The second incident occurred over a foil-covered chocolate heart, but there was no evidence that she paid for it

The third and fourth items, a Rainbow Nerd Rope and Curly Wurly Squirlies, were shared between co-workers. The pharmacist said she believed her colleagues would pay for them.

Gavriloski gave evidence that he pulled the pharmacist aside, accusing her of stealing on all four occasions, showing her the CCTV footage, and issued her a letter to attend a meeting the following day. The pharmacist told the commission that she was only shown a series of partial clips of the CCTV footage, which Gavriloski all rushed through.

After the conversation, the pharmacist went to the service counter and paid for the items she allegedly stole, including the Byron Bay cookie she had already paid for, she submitted.

“She was upset at having been accused of theft and so, for an abundance of caution and as a sign of goodwill, she made payment for the items,” the commissioner determined in his decision.

On 23 September 2025, the pharmacist attended the meeting with Gavriloski and John Slow, the pharmacy manager, during which she was asked whether she had receipts for the allegedly stolen confectionery.

The pharmacist said she felt overwhelmed, distressed, and intimidated and was unable to explain her position properly.

Following her failure to produce these receipts, she was issued a termination letter effective immediately on the basis that her conduct constituted serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal.

DPL also submitted that several other employees received first and final warnings for alleged confectionery theft.

Although her employer also submitted that another employee had been dismissed at a similar time to her, the commissioner ruled that the pharmacist was treated more harshly than her co-workers, as she was not provided a warning before her dismissal.

The commissioner said: “The absence of receipts or other proof of payment for the items is not sufficient to establish an intention to steal.”

In his decision, the commissioner determined that DPL’s evidence that the pharmacist had engaged in theft – the basis for her summary dismissal was unsatisfactory, ruling the termination unfair and invalid. The commissioner also took into account her long and unblemished service and the disproportionate outcome compared to her co-workers.

Finding that their strained relationship makes reinstatement inappropriate, the court ordered DPL to pay the pharmacist $23,960.86 in compensation plus superannuation for lost wages.