She lowered a roller door mid-theft, then lost her job. The tribunal saw it differently
A liquor retailer sacked a 17-year employee for lowering a roller door during a store theft. The tribunal called it harsh and ordered her job back.
In a decision handed down on July 31, 2026, the Fair Work Commission found that Endeavour Group Limited - the drinks retailer behind the BWS chain - had no valid reason to dismiss a long-serving worker at one of its Tasmanian stores. It ordered her reinstated, with her service intact.
The worker had spent about 17 years with the business. In her final months, the store was hit by a run of "swarming" thefts, where a group storms in, grabs stock and bolts. She counted 16 theft-related incidents between June 2025 and January 2026. Her own manager accepted it "wasn't a fun place to work at for a period of time."
The incident that ended her job happened on January 9, 2026. Three offenders came in and loaded bags with liquor. From near the exit, the worker began lowering the front roller door and, by her own account, told them "words to the effect of 'leave the store now, we are closing, go.'" As one offender left, he threw a bottle that struck a colleague in the thigh.
The employer treated the door-lowering as serious misconduct. It said the worker had breached its code of conduct, its safety policy and its "Responding to Theft" training module, and it pointed to a "first and final warning" she had been given in August 2025, after she grabbed an offender's bag in an earlier theft. She was dismissed on January 22, 2026.
The Commission saw it differently, and its reasoning reads like a checklist for anyone who runs a disciplinary process.
It accepted the door-lowering was something the worker should not have done - it added uncertainty to an already tense situation. But it found the act was not serious enough, on its own, to justify dismissal. It was indirect, not physical, and in the Commission's view was better dealt with by counselling and training than by the sack.
Three threads stand out for HR.
Tolerated conduct undercut the employer's case. The worker had lowered the door the same way once before, in September 2025. She was not disciplined. Instead, colleagues gave her the nickname "The Enforcer" and left a note on the wall referring to it, which management allowed to stay up for months. The Commission said she would reasonably have read that as approval - which cut against any claim she knew the conduct was off-limits.
Distance at the top hurt too. The manager who decided to dismiss her had no direct dealings with her. He conceded he did not know she had a clean record before 2025, and he gave no weight to her long service. The Commission said it was "slightly perturbed," warning that a remote decision-maker "might miss something."
And the employer blamed the worker for the whole escalation while overlooking a colleague's conduct. The Commission found it was at least as likely that the bottle-throwing was set off by that colleague - who was shouting at the offender and openly holding a phone - as by the door coming down. How managers watched the same footage and "attributed no culpability" to him, it said, was "beyond me."
The Commission also rejected the "no remorse" argument. A worker fighting to keep her job, it said, should not be confused with one who lacks contrition - all the more so when she later accepted she had acted wrongly and promised not to repeat it.
On remedy, the employer argued reinstatement was inappropriate: it had lost trust, and colleagues would be uneasy working with her. The Commission disagreed, finding those concerns rested on a mischaracterisation of what she had actually done. It ordered her back in her role, with continuity of service preserved.
It also ordered lost pay - but cut it in half. Part of the reason was that she had not looked for other work; part was that her conduct, while not warranting dismissal, was still conduct she should have avoided. Her total loss was put at about $7,313.51, and the order came to $3,656.76, less tax, plus superannuation.
The takeaway for employers: a policy breach is not the same as a valid reason to dismiss. Proportionality, consistency, a clean record and a decision-maker who actually knows the employee still carry real weight - and getting them wrong can end in a reinstatement order.
