Sunita Somvanshi
Every day, Australian retail workers watch thieves walk out with stock. Step in and stop them, and you risk losing your job. A Fair Work Commission ruling this month handed one sacked Coles employee almost $6,500—but the legal detail buried in the decision sends a warning to every supermarket, bottle shop, and retail worker considering the same move.
The Fair Work Commission ordered Coles to pay $6,483.51 in compensation to a worker who intervened when two suspected shoplifters attempted to steal from an adjacent Liquorland store. The casual employee at the Pyrmont store, with approximately 10 years of service, physically restrained one suspect for approximately two minutes and 20 seconds. Coles dismissed him for breaching the company’s workplace safety policy, which strictly prohibits staff from physically intervening, chasing, or restraining suspected shoplifters. Deputy President Judith Wright ruled the dismissal was “harsh and unreasonable” given the worker’s clean employment history and the instinctive, non-deliberate nature of his action—but explicitly confirmed that Coles had a “valid reason” to fire him. He was not reinstated.
If you work in Australian retail, do not misread this payout as legal protection to chase or grab shoplifters. The Fair Work Commission upheld that breaching a “no-intervention” policy is a valid reason for dismissal. Workers with prior warnings—or those who knowingly pursue a thief outside the store—can still be legally terminated with zero compensation and no reinstatement.
Deputy President Wright’s ruling does not change what retailers are allowed to enforce. Major supermarket chains hold strict non-intervention policies for a clear commercial reason: workers’ compensation claims for staff injured while detaining a suspect, and civil liability exposure if the suspect is wrongfully held, far outweigh the loss from any individual shoplifting incident. What made this specific case “harsh and unreasonable” was the combination of an unblemished employment record, a spontaneous reaction at a neighbouring store rather than the employee’s own, and Wright’s finding that he did not knowingly and deliberately breach the policy. The $6,483.51 award—well below the maximum compensation available under the Fair Work Act—reflects how far Wright discounted the remedy because the policy breach itself was real. Workers wanting to understand their full rights can review Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal compensation caps or check Australian retail workplace safety laws and obligations through the FWC’s own guidance.
The headline figure of almost $6,500 suggests a win for the worker. The actual outcome was the opposite: he lost his job permanently and received a fraction of what the Fair Work Act allows—specifically because Wright ruled the two minutes and 20 seconds of physical restraint, however instinctive, gave Coles every right to dismiss him. The payout reflected procedural harshness, not vindication.
*Can Coles or Woolworths fire you for stopping a shoplifter?* Yes. Major Australian retailers like Coles enforce strict workplace health and safety policies forbidding staff from chasing or physically restraining suspected thieves. In October 2026, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Judith Wright confirmed breaching this rule provides a “valid reason” for dismissal, though she awarded one first-time offender almost $6,500 because firing him was disproportionately harsh.
The Fair Work Commission ruling draws a clear line: a workplace safety policy can be valid even when its enforcement in a particular case is disproportionate. That distinction, not the dollar amount, is the operative message for retail staff.
