$6k compensation for fired supermarket employee involved in tussle

A Coles employee who physically restrained a suspected shoplifter has won his unfair dismissal case.

According to the Fair Work Commission (FWC), the employee did breach the supermarket’s code of conduct, but did not act with malice in doing so, resulting in a compensation order of $6,483.51.

Commencing employment with Coles in October 2015 and working as a casual store team member in the supermarket’s Pyrmont location at the time of dismissal, the worker was involved in an altercation with members of the public in relation to suspected thievery.

The applicant had previously flagged that the location and the adjacent Liquorland store were the target of shoplifting.

On the night of 1 December 2025, the applicant claimed to have seen two suspected and allegedly well-known shoplifters walk out of the store with unpaid items, at which time the employee said he wanted to take his break.

The employee said he made contact with the alleged shoplifters and asked them not to steal, at which point he intended to take his break before seeing them enter the liquor store.

The employee again engaged the alleged shoplifters, at which point one of the individuals allegedly threw a four-pack of alcohol on the pavement. At this time, the employee physically restrained one of the suspected shoplifters for approximately two and a half minutes.

On discovery that the police would not arrive for some time, the applicant said they chose to release the individual.

During communication with the police, the employee claimed that the reason for the conduct was connected to frustration over apparent lack of action by Coles management in preventing the repeat offenders.

The applicant also claimed that, as he was on his break at the time of the act, he was within the law to take the action.

The employee was taken to a meeting on arrival of his shift on 3 December, where he was allegedly denied a support person by the Pyrmont Coles store manager, who allegedly said: “There’s no union representative … I can have a conversation with you” and threatened to escort him out of the building if he didn’t cooperate.

The applicant further claimed that the manager’s tone was bullying and aggressive in manner, and that he was refused a copy of the script the manager was reading from to inform him of his suspension.

On informing a union delegate for the store, the employee was told he should not have spoken to the manager without a support person.

The next day, 4 December, the employee appeared at the store location to request a discussion with the manager. After allegedly having a short conversation, the manager claimed to feel anxious after the employee allegedly refused to leave the store and due to his conduct on 1 December.

The employee allegedly left on receipt of the documents.

When the police appeared at the store later that day, the manager claimed to have felt shaken and taken aback by the interaction.

The employee was invited to a disciplinary meeting on 10 December in an email that detailed the allegations, their serious nature, the possibility of termination, and that he had the opportunity to bring a support person.

The first meeting explained the allegations in more detail and allowed the employee to see the CCTV footage, with the employee invited the next day to provide a response.

However, it was determined that the responses did not sufficiently offer an apology or ownership of the incident, with the employee terminated on 11 December, and sent a written letter the following day.

In consideration of the dismissal, FWC deputy president Judith Wright noted that the validity of the termination related to whether the Code of Conduct policy applied to an employee on a break and whether the employee committed a second breach on appearing at the store during his suspension.

It was noted: “Where a dismissal relates to an employee’s conduct, the Commission must be satisfied that the conduct occurred and justified termination … the test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination.”

On the first matter, Wright determined that the policies did apply as the employee was both in his work uniform and in a Coles-affiliated location, given the Liquorland is owned by Coles Group.

The commission found that the action created a health and safety hazard for both the employee and members of the public and constituted an investigation and disciplinary action.

However, Wright also rejected that respondent’s claim that the employee’s appearance at Coles the day after suspension justified dismissal, given that it was not explicitly nor textually clarified that he was banned from the store during this time.

On the employee’s conduct during both alleged breaches, Wright accepted that the employee believed he was helping by restraining the suspected shoplifter, and the action therefore constituted ordinary conduct rather than serious misconduct that warranted instant dismissal.

It was determined that the employee’s dismissal was valid but harsh and unreasonable, due to the fact that the applicant did not knowingly and deliberately breach the supermarket’s conduct policies, and given his lengthy service and clean employment record.

Noting that compensation must not be ordered unless the commission is satisfied reinstatement is inappropriate, Wright ordered Coles to pay compensation to the employee totalling $6,483.51 plus superannuation and less taxation, taking into account a 10 per cent deduction due to the misconduct.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.