Coles had a valid reason to dismiss a casual worker who held a suspected shoplifter for more than two minutes in a Liquorland store. The dismissal was still harsh and unreasonable, Deputy President Wright has found, and Coles must pay the worker $6,483.51 plus superannuation, less tax, on or before 6 November 2026.
The worker started with Coles on 14 October 2015 and was working at its Pyrmont store when he was dismissed, giving him roughly 10 years and two months of service. He had not been disciplined before. The Coles Retail Enterprise Agreement 2024 applied to his employment.
On a break, next door, still in uniform
On 1 December 2025, during a 6pm to 11pm shift, the worker saw two people he believed had left the Coles store without paying. He said he then took a break. He said he saw them go into the adjoining Liquorland store, which is owned by the Coles Group, and fill cooler bags with alcohol. The Liquorland staff member rang police. The worker physically restrained one of the pair by gripping her shoulders and upper body, and let go after about 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
Coles suspended him on 3 December 2025 and directed him not to enter its stores. He went into the Pyrmont store the next day. On 11 December 2025 he was summarily dismissed (dismissed without notice) for serious misconduct on both counts. He filed under s.394 of the Fair Work Act on 31 December 2025, and the matter was heard on 21 May 2026.
that the worker pursued the suspected shoplifters out of its store and became involved in a physical altercation, in breach of its Threatening Situations Safe Work Practices and Code of Conduct, and that entering the store while suspended breached a “lawful and reasonable workplace direction”.
that he was on a break and away from his workplace, so the policies did not apply, and that restraining an alleged thief was lawful. He denied following the pair out of the Coles store.
that the policies applied and the restraint was a valid reason for dismissal, but that the breach of the suspension direction was not.
Because the CCTV footage Coles relied upon could no longer be produced, the Deputy President found there was not enough evidence that the worker followed the pair out of the store. The Commission, rather than the employer’s belief, decides whether the alleged conduct occurred. The Deputy President accepted the worker was on a break, but found it “highly improbable” that an experienced retail worker would need one after seeing shoplifting, and concluded the real purpose was to keep watch on the pair.
The Deputy President found the safety procedure was aimed at the risks that arise when an employee tries to stop a theft, and that those risks exist whether the attempt happens inside a Coles store or somewhere else. The Code of Conduct extends to “any other situation where there is a connection to Coles”, and the worker was wearing his Coles uniform.
The Deputy President accepted the worker genuinely believed the policies did not apply and did not breach them intentionally, but found his actions “had the potential to cause serious harm to himself and others”.
The suspension breach did not count
The Deputy President found the 3 December suspension meeting was “poorly handled”. The store manager refused the worker’s request for a support person while bringing one of her own. The direction not to enter Coles stores was never put to him in writing. The Deputy President found his only purpose in returning the next day was to get information he should have received when suspended, that he was not aggressive, and that there was no reason to call police. In that context, the breach did not justify dismissal.
Weighed under s.387, the worker’s length of service, good record, the isolated nature of the incident and the absence of a deliberate breach outweighed the seriousness of the conduct. The Deputy President accepted it was misconduct, not serious misconduct.
Why he does not get his job back
The worker sought reinstatement. Coles said it had lost trust and confidence because he still denied any wrongdoing and showed no insight. The Deputy President agreed that loss of trust was justified, finding that the worker should have recognised after his dismissal that the policies applied, yet kept arguing throughout the proceedings that they did not.
How $6,483.51 was reached
Coles reported average weekly earnings of $480.26. The Deputy President found the worker would have stayed at least 12 months, worth $24,973.52. He told the Commission he had been applying for roles but provided no evidence of it. Allowing for the Christmas period, the Deputy President found he should have secured a similar role within 15 weeks, giving $7,203.90. That figure was then cut by 10% under s.392(3), which requires a reduction where misconduct contributed to the dismissal, leaving $6,483.51.
At a glance
- Parties: A casual store team member (applicant) and Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3086, Deputy President Wright, 23 October 2026
- Section: Fair Work Act 2009, ss.394, 387, 390, 392
- Outcome: Valid reason found, dismissal harsh and unreasonable, reinstatement refused, $6,483.51 compensation plus superannuation
- Payment due: On or before 6 November 2026
The decision applies an employer’s theft-response safety procedure to an intervention made during a break, in a store owned by the Coles Group, because the risks the procedure addresses arise wherever an employee tries to stop a theft. The worker’s continued position that the policies did not apply did not prevent a finding of unfairness, but it was the stated basis for refusing reinstatement.
Source: [2026] FWC 3086
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.