Reinstatement for “acclaimed” bottle-o staffer sacked over robbery intervention

A long-serving bottle shop attendant has won compensation and reinstatement with Commissioner Redford of the Fair Work Commission left dumbfounded by the “complete lack of sentiment” shown by her employer, when it dismissed her over a “well-intentioned” attempt to dissuade thieves who were “swarming” the store.

The 67-year-old employee had experienced numerous “swarming” incidents in her 17 years of service working across several locations in northern Tasmania, with the practice – which refers to multiple offenders entering a retail establishment as a group to steal in a flagrant manner and then quickly leave – increasing in regularity. The store in which the attendant worked at the time of her dismissal had experienced more than a dozen theft-related incidents between June 2025 and January 2026. The attendant first fell afoul of the employer’s policy regarding “responding to theft” in July 2025, when she grabbed at a bag being carried by a thief leaving the store, causing several bottles to smash on the floor. Commissioner Redford commented that this incident involved “a particularly obvious failure” on the part of the attendant to comply with the employer’s policy, which expressly stated, “you should never confront a customer in a threatening manner including chasing a customer or attempting to grab their bag”. The attendant conceded she should not have grabbed at the offender’s bag in this instance but disagreed that her conduct warranted the “first and final warning” her employer issued.

In September 2025, during another swarming incident in which the offenders were wearing balaclavas, the attendant managed to thwart the robbery attempt by indicating she was about to close the roller door, inferring the thieves would be trapped inside if they didn’t leave. The attendant’s “split-second decision” was successful and resulted in her co-workers referring to her as “The Enforcer”, while a “joke” sticker was posted to the roller door by an anonymous team member labelling it the “Wendy ‘The Enforcer’ Door”. Store management was aware of the existence of the sticker, which remained in place for “many months” thereafter and was still posted at the time of the attendant’s dismissal.

Early in January 2026, the store experienced a swarming incident involving a male offender who had been denied entry to the store on a previous occasion (at which time he caused damage to a glass door). The male offender, accompanied by two masked females, entered the store and engaged in an animated verbal stoush with the attendant’s two male colleagues who were working at the front counter while the attendant was in the back storeroom. When the attendant emerged from the storeroom, she again employed the tactic of warning that the roller door was about to be shuttered but paused briefly while her colleagues motioned to be calling the police. As the male offender left, when the door was lowering on him, he threw a bottle which hit one of the male staffers in the thigh. After working two further shifts without incident, the attendant was dismissed for engaging in “serious misconduct”, with the employer’s chief decision-maker endorsing termination on the basis the attendant “did not recognise or acknowledge” her conduct breached relevant policies and training and “did not even acknowledge the possibility that her actions may have led to the escalation in the offender’s behaviour”. Fundamentally, the employer regarded the attendant’s actions in starting to lower the roller door caused the male offender to throw the (stolen) bottle at her colleague.

Commissioner Redford concluded the attendant’s behaviour during the January incident failed to constitute a valid reason for dismissal. He described the action of lowering the roller door as an “indirect” intervention, adding it was “not stupid or reckless, and on the lower end of conduct an employee should avoid in such an incident”. The Commissioner also assessed it was “conceivable” the actions of the attendant’s colleague – specifically, using the phone, in full view of the offenders in a manner the employer’s policies would describe as “provocative” – caused the male offender to lash out and throw a bottle at him, rather than the attendant lowering the roller door.

Despite the attendant conceding she breached the employer’s policies during the January incident, Commissioner Redford was not satisfied she was ever given a clear direction that taking action to lower the roller door constituted a significant breach. Instead, he suggested that “more leeway should have been afforded to her than that which was given, in circumstances where, as a result, she lost her job”. The Commissioner expressed that the manner in which relevant training was delivered to the attendant in 2025 was unsatisfactory, noting she was expected to complete an online training module on the computer at the front counter of the store in between serving customers, even though her store manager admitted to being aware she was not “computer-savvy”. In addition, Commissioner Redford observed that the attendant had been “acclaimed by her colleagues for having used the roller door” to thwart a previous theft in 2025, and that the “light-hearted” sticker which was attached to the roller door and the nickname (“The Enforcer”) attributed to her post-incident “must have undoubtedly been taken by [the attendant] as affirmatory, in relation to her conduct”.

Having determined there was no valid reason for dismissal, Commissioner Redford said he was “slightly perturbed” the employer’s chief decision maker “had no direct interaction with [the employee] and made his decision [about termination] significantly at arms-length”, paying no regard to the attendant’s “unblemished record of service over a significant period working for the business (save for the incident in July 2025)”. He was also critical of the fact the attendant’s male colleague had apparently escaped sanction, when his conduct during the January 2026 incident was more “pronounced” and risky. Finally, the Commissioner lamented the employer’s failure to acknowledge that the attendant had not behaved in the manner she did “for her own gratification or benefit”, concluding “it should have counted for something that the [attendant’s] act was well-intentioned and not mischievous”. Overall, he regarded the dismissal to be disproportionate and harsh.

In settling on remedy, Commissioner Redford rejected the employer’s argument that the attendant posed a “genuine health and safety risk to herself, her colleagues and members of the public”, reinforcing there was no sound basis “for a conclusion there has been a breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence”. He ordered reinstatement as was sought by the employee. The attendant was also awarded continuity of service and lost pay for the 29 weeks she remained without employment, discounted by 50% for her conduct and the fact she made “no attempt” to source other employment post-dismissal, with compensation amounting to $3,656.755 gross, plus superannuation.

Blair v Endeavour Group Limited [2026] FWC 1873 (31 July 2026)