The FWC just handed $24k lesson in proving serious misconduct
An Australian pharmacy sacked a 14-year employee over confectionery worth a few dollars. The Fair Work Commission ordered nearly $24,000 in compensation.
Cheryl Sazdanoff had worked as a pharmacy assistant at Docs John Hunter Hospital Pharmacy since 11 February 2011. On 22 September 2025, owner Aleksandar Gavriloski unexpectedly called her to an area of the pharmacy out of customer view and told her: "We've caught you stealing." The allegations centred on four incidents across August and September 2025 involving small confectionery items consumed during work hours.
The following day, Sazdanoff attended a meeting with Gavriloski and pharmacy manager John Slow. Gavriloski asked whether she had receipts for the items he claimed she had stolen. Sazdanoff described feeling overwhelmed, distressed and intimidated, and said she was unable to properly explain her position. She was handed a termination letter stating that her conduct constituted serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal. Her employment ended that day, 23 September 2025.
Sazdanoff did not deny taking and consuming items during her shifts. What she disputed was the characterisation of that conduct as theft. She told the Commission it was common practice among pharmacy staff to consume food items during a shift and pay for them later, a practice she understood was "known and tolerated." CCTV footage reviewed by Commissioner Sloan showed no attempt by Sazdanoff to conceal her conduct on any of the four occasions.
One item, a Byron Bay cookie taken on 14 August 2025, was paid for later that same day. For the remaining incidents, Sazdanoff provided explanations. On 2 September 2025, she removed two foil-covered chocolate hearts from a box at the front of the pharmacy counter, handing one to a co-worker. There was no evidence she paid for them that day. On 4 September 2025, she tried a small piece of a new product called a Rainbow Nerd Rope and passed the rest to co-workers, assuming they would cover the cost. Later that same day, she and a co-worker shared a packet of Curly Wurly Squirlies at the co-worker's suggestion, with Sazdanoff believing her colleague would pay for it. When confronted on 22 September 2025, Sazdanoff went immediately to the service counter and paid for all the items. She told the Commission she did so for an abundance of caution and as a sign of goodwill. The Commissioner accepted that explanation, noting it was supported by the fact that she had paid once more for the Byron Bay cookie she had already settled on 14 August.
Gavriloski maintained during the hearing that company policy required staff to pay for and consume items on their break. He also conceded there is a difference between an employee who takes an item with no intention of paying and one who intends to pay later. The written policies were not produced in evidence before the Commission.
The Commission also heard that other staff who had consumed items without immediate payment were given first and final warnings rather than dismissed. One other employee was dismissed around the same time as Sazdanoff.
On 2 April 2026, Commissioner Sloan found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The evidence did not establish that Sazdanoff had the intention to steal, and the Commission found no valid reason for dismissal. Her more than 14 years of unblemished service and the disproportionate outcome compared to her co-workers both featured in the Commissioner's formal conclusion. The Commission also noted, as a separately relevant matter, that DPL had made only perfunctory efforts to allow Sazdanoff to properly view and respond to the CCTV footage before the decision to dismiss was made.
Sazdanoff, who appeared for herself, was awarded compensation of $23,960.86, equivalent to 22 weeks' pay, plus 12% superannuation, less taxation as required by law, payable by 30 April 2026. The amount was set below the statutory compensation cap, equivalent to 26 weeks' pay, because Sazdanoff provided only limited evidence of her efforts to find new work after her dismissal, having applied for just three jobs. The Commissioner indicated that stronger evidence of mitigation would have resulted in the full cap being awarded.
The decision reinforces that proving serious misconduct is not just about establishing what happened, it is about establishing why. A credibly documented policy, consistently applied discipline, and a genuine opportunity for an employee to respond to evidence before a decision is made are not procedural niceties. In the Fair Work Commission, they are the difference between a defensible dismissal and a costly one.
