In a decision handed down on 23 October 2026, the Fair Work Commission found that while Coles had a valid reason to dismiss Mr Ryan Anderson, his dismissal was harsh and unreasonable. Consequently, Deputy President Wright ordered Coles to pay a specific financial remedy. [1]
🏷️ Tags
#FairWorkAct2009#UnfairDismissal#SeriousMisconduct#ColesSupermarkets#ValidReason#HarshAndUnreasonable#CompensationRemedy#WorkplacePolicyBreach#AustralianEmploymentLaw
📋 Case Details
- Applicant: Mr Ryan Anderson (Self-represented)
- Respondent: Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Represented by Ms Sayomi Ariyawansa, Solicitor)
- Commission Member: Deputy President Wright
- Date of Decision: 23 October 2026
- Matter Number: U2025/20683
- Citation: \(2026\) FWC 3086
🏆 Final Outcome & Financial Remedy
The Fair Work Commission declined to order reinstatement because Mr Anderson’s continuing belief that Coles’ safety policies did not apply to him while on a break undermined the necessary employer trust. Instead, Deputy President Wright ordered a financial remedy:
- Compensation Awarded: $6,483.51 plus superannuation (less applicable tax).
- Payment Deadline: Coles was ordered to process the payment by 6 November 2026.
- Calculation Details: The Commission estimated that Mr Anderson would have likely remained employed for another 12 months, earning $24,973.52. However, the payout was calculated based on a 15-week job search window ($7,203.90) and then reduced by 10% because his misconduct contributed directly to his termination.
🔹 Key Facts
- Employment History: Mr Anderson worked as a Casual Store Team Member at Coles Pyrmont from 14 October 2015 until his dismissal (approximately 10 years of service). [1, 2]
- The Incident (1 December 2025): While in uniform, Mr Anderson witnessed two underage, notorious shoplifters stealing alcohol from an adjacent, Coles-owned Liquorland store. He physically restrained one of the shoplifters for approximately 2 minutes and 20 seconds. [1, 2]
- Workplace Culture: Mr Anderson gave evidence that a lack of security led to a store culture where employees frequently took matters into their own hands to stop thieves.
- Suspension and Breach (3–4 December 2025): Coles suspended Mr Anderson pending an investigation and banned him from entering Coles stores. He breached this direction by entering the Pyrmont store the following day.
- Termination (11 December 2025): Coles dismissed Mr Anderson for serious misconduct regarding the physical altercation and the subsequent breach of his suspension conditions.
⚖️ Commission Findings
- Valid Reason: A valid reason for dismissal did exist due to the physical restraint incident and the breach of the lawful store ban.
- Harsh & Unreasonable: Despite the valid reason, the termination was ruled unfair because Mr Anderson did not knowingly or deliberately breach company policy, possessed a lengthy 10-year service history, and maintained a previously unblemished employment record.
⚠️ Disclaimer
This summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is a condensed interpretation of the provided Fair Work Commission transcript extract and external findings and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. For specific legal guidance or detailed analysis regarding employment law and unfair dismissal matters, please consult a qualified practitioner.