Fair Work Commission orders Coles to pay Pyrmont worker $6,500

The Fair Work Commission has ordered Coles to pay a Pyrmont worker $6,483.51 after finding his dismissal unfair, while also accepting that the supermarket had a valid reason to dismiss him. Deputy president Judith Wright considered the dismissal harsh and unreasonable, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, which reported the ruling and the circumstances behind it.

The case concerned the worker’s actions at a neighbouring Liquorland store, where he tried to stop two suspected thieves. He attempted to restrain one of them, holding her around the shoulders and upper body as she pulled against him. The restraint lasted about two minutes and 20 seconds, the newspaper reported. A Liquorland employee working alone called police.

The worker released the woman after realising police would not arrive soon. The account does not state what happened to the other suspected thief or whether police attended. The worker described his decision as a “sudden impulse”, saying frustration and Coles’ lack of action against repeat offenders contributed to it.

That explanation was his stated view, rather than a finding that Coles had failed to act. He also said he would not have detained the suspects had he been in a Coles store, and that he had never detained anyone during his 10 years working for the company. Wright’s assessment turned on the distinction between the reason for dismissal and the severity of the penalty.

She found a valid reason for dismissal, but said the worker had not knowingly and deliberately breached workplace policies. She also considered the incident isolated and his service record unblemished, according to The Sydney Morning Herald. The commission’s award was $6,483.51.

The headline from onnotice.com.au also reports that Coles must pay the worker that amount over the Liquorland restraint. The Sydney Morning Herald describes it as compensation for a harsh and unreasonable dismissal, rather than a finding that the supermarket lacked a valid reason to dismiss him.

The outcome therefore combines two findings: Coles had grounds to dismiss the worker, but the commission considered dismissal too harsh in light of the circumstances it identified. The ruling resulted in an order for compensation, while the reported account does not specify a payment date or describe any further commission decision.