A Coles worker who attempted to stop two suspected shoplifters at a neighbouring Liquorland store has been awarded $6,483.51 in compensation after the Fair Work Commission found the supermarket chain's decision to sack him was harsh and unreasonable.
Eamon Gallagher, a casual team member of 10 years at a Coles store in the Sydney suburb of Pyrmont, encountered two suspects during an evening shift in December last year. The suspects, who Mr Gallagher said were well known for stealing and abusing staff, moved from the Coles self-checkouts into an adjacent Liquorland. Believing the action was acceptable because he was on a break and outside the Coles premises, he followed them and physically restrained one for about two minutes and 20 seconds.
Coles dismissed Mr Gallagher for breaching three rules in its code of conduct, which requires staff to avoid situations where they could be hurt and never to follow anyone out of a shop. The store manager who suspended him said she felt "anxious and a bit scared" after viewing the CCTV footage. Mr Gallagher was initially denied a union delegate and written documentation of his suspension, a process Deputy President Judith Wright said was poorly handled by the chain.
Wright ruled that while Coles had a valid reason for dismissal, the termination was harsh and unreasonable given the worker's long, unblemished record and the isolated nature of the incident. "If this information had been provided, it would not have been necessary for [the man] to attend the workplace the following day," Wright said, noting it was unusual for an organisation as large as Coles not to have prepared the suspension documentation. However, because Mr Gallagher failed to acknowledge he had breached the policies, she declined to order his reinstatement.
The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association said the case showed the real risks retail workers face. "It is just one of the reasons the SDA has pushed, successfully, for tougher measures and penalties to protect retail workers from the rising tide of violence and abuse," a spokesperson said.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling underscores that a valid policy breach does not automatically justify dismissal, particularly when weighed against a worker's long service record.
- It highlights the difficult balance retail workers must strike between company safety protocols and the instinct to intervene in theft or abuse.
- The decision criticises procedural failures in the suspension process, offering guidance for employers across the retail sector.
Background
The Fair Work Act 2009 provides avenues for workers to challenge dismissal as harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Coles, Australia's second-largest supermarket chain, operates strict codes of conduct that prioritise staff safety over asset protection. The case was brought before the Fair Work Commission, the national workplace relations tribunal, and decided by Deputy President Judith Wright.
Key Perspectives
Eamon Gallagher: Believed intervening outside the Coles store was permissible under company policy and said he acted out of frustration at a perceived lack of action by Coles against repeat offenders. He maintained he would not have done so inside the Coles store.
Coles store management: The Pyrmont manager said the CCTV footage of the physical altercation made her feel "anxious and a bit scared", leading to the suspension.
Fair Work Commission (Deputy President Judith Wright): Ruled Coles had a valid reason under its code, which applies wherever there is a connection to the business. However, the dismissal was harsh for a worker with a decade of clean service, and the poor handling of the suspension procedure undermined Coles' case.
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA): Argued the case illustrates the "real risks surrounding shops and stores every day" and supports the need for tougher penalties to protect retail workers facing a "rising tide of violence and abuse".
What to Watch
- Whether Coles chooses to appeal the compensation order or adjusts its internal suspension and termination procedures as a result of the criticism.
- The development of state and federal laws around retail worker safety and penalties for assaulting retail staff.
- How retail unions use the decision to advocate for clearer guidelines on when workers should take action against theft versus prioritising safety.