Commission rules Coles' safety policy on threatening situations applied even outside store and during break
A Coles worker with 10 years' service at the supermarket's Pyrmont store in Sydney was sacked after holding a suspected shoplifter at a neighbouring liquor store while police were called.
But the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has now awarded him $6,483.51 in compensation, finding his dismissal harsh and unreasonable, even though FWC Deputy President Judith Wright ruled that Coles had a valid reason to dismiss him.
Restraint at Liquorland
The dispute stems from an incident on 1 December 2025, when the worker saw two suspected shoplifters leave the store without paying while he was working an evening shift.
He described them as teenagers who regularly stole from the store and abused staff. He told the Commission he then took a break and spoke to the pair outside, asking them not to steal.
The pair then entered the adjoining Liquorland store, which is owned by the Coles Group, and began placing alcohol into cooler bags. He followed them in.
While the lone Liquorland staff member called police, he held one of them around the shoulders and upper body for about two minutes and 20 seconds as she pulled against him. He then let her go.
Coles suspended the worker on 3 December and directed him not to enter its stores. The next day, he returned to the Pyrmont store with a union delegate to ask for documentation about his suspension. Police were later called.
Coles dismissed him for serious misconduct on 11 December, citing both the altercation and the breach of his suspension.
Uniform tied conduct to Coles
The worker argued that Coles' Threatening Situations Safe Work Practice (SWP) and Code of Conduct did not apply because he was on a break and outside his workplace.
The Commission accepted that he was on a break but doubted its purpose.
"I believe that the true purpose of the break was so that [the worker] could keep an eye on the suspected shoplifters and monitor their next move," Wright said.
She accepted that the worker genuinely believed the policies did not apply but found that they did. The safety risks the SWP addresses, she said, "apply regardless of whether a Coles employee attempts to stop a theft within a Coles store or at another location."
The decision also noted that the worker's connection to the company "would have been known by those witnessing it because he was wearing his Coles uniform."
"Although [the worker] did not intentionally breach these policies, his actions had the potential to cause serious harm to himself and others," Wright said.
Suspension 'poorly handled'
Coles' second ground for dismissal did not hold up. Wright found that the store manager had refused his request for a support person while bringing her own. The manager also did not give him the direction not to enter the store in writing.
"Given the importance of the direction to Coles, it is unusual that an organisation as large as Coles would not have prepared such a letter," Wright said.
The manager told the Commission she "felt anxious and a bit scared" during the 4 December exchange. The worker denied acting aggressively, and the union delegate who was with him corroborated his account. Wright accepted that evidence and found the manager's "claims of being shaken by [the worker's] behaviour were exaggerated."
Although his attendance breached the direction, the Commission ruled it "does not amount to a valid reason for the dismissal."
Wright also rejected Coles' characterisation of the Liquorland incident as serious misconduct. She accepted only that it "amounted to misconduct" and found it was an isolated incident.
No reinstatement
The worker sought reinstatement, but Wright accepted Coles' argument that it had justifiably lost trust and confidence in him because he continued to deny any wrongdoing.
"[The worker] should have been able to come to this conclusion himself following the dismissal but continued to argue throughout the proceedings that the Threatening Situations SWP and the Code of Conduct did not apply," she said.
Compensation was based on 15 weeks of the worker's average weekly earnings of $480.26, totalling $7,203.90. Wright limited the period to 15 weeks because he provided no evidence of job applications. The amount was then reduced by 10% for misconduct.
