Long serving hospital pharmacy assistant unfairly dismissed for alleged lolly thefts

The employee was employed as a pharmacy assistant from 11 February 2011.

On 22 September 2025 she was unexpectedly called by the owner to an area of the pharmacy out of customer view and told “We’ve caught you stealing”, which she denied.

The owner made a brief attempt to show her CCTV footage which he claimed revealed the theft, showing partial video clips that initially failed to load and intermittently froze.

He gave her a letter inviting her to a meeting the following day and informing she could bring a support person.

Immediately after the conversation the employee went to the service counter and paid for the allegedly stolen items.

The next day she attended a meeting with the owner and asked if she had receipts for the alleged stolen items.  She was then given a letter notifying that her employment was terminated for serious misconduct.

She applied for unfair dismissal.

At the hearing the employer produced evidence showing:

• On 14 August 2025, she took a “Byron Bay cookie” from a shelf in the pharmacy and ate it behind the check-out counter. There was nothing in the CCTV footage to suggest that she was attempting to disguise or conceal her conduct.  (She paid for the cookie at 1.40pm that day.)
• On 2 September 2025, she removed two foil-covered chocolate hearts from a box at the front of the pharmacy counter, passing one to a co-worker. The footage did not show her eating the chocolate. There was no evidence that she paid for the chocolate hearts that day.  (She said she could not recall whether she ate it or not.)
• On 4 September 2025, while standing behind the counter, she opened a packet containing a “Rainbow Nerd Rope”, a new product that she and other staff members wanted to try.  She cut a small piece and ate it, and gave the item to her co-workers to share, as she did not like it. (She said she assumed that her co-workers, having “finished it off”, would pay for it.)
• On 4 September 2025, one of her co-workers handed her a packet of “Curly Wurly Squirlies”, suggesting that they share it. She cut the packet open with a pair of scissors and placed the open packet on the counter.  She and her co-worker ate an item from the packet. The packet was left on the counter to share. (She believed that her co-worker would pay for the item as it was the co-worker’s suggestion to share it.)

In each case there was nothing in the CCTV footage to suggest that she was attempting to disguise or conceal her conduct.

She said it was common and known practice for staff in the pharmacy to consume food items during their shift and to pay for them at the end of the shift, if not before.

She said that she was upset at having been accused of theft and so, for an abundance of caution and as a sign of goodwill, she made payment for the items.

The Commissioner upheld the employee’s application, finding that:

• There was no valid reason for dismissal where:
  –  Footage that she consumed any of the items did not show an intention that they would not be paid for.
  –  Paying for the cookie on 14 August 2025 was evidence she knew she had to pay for items she took.
  –  She had been accused of theft.  It was not enough for the employer to contend that she removed stock without payment, it had to demonstrate that she had done so intentionally.
  –  On the evidence the employer had not established that she engaged in theft, which was the basis for her summary dismissal.
• The dismissal was harsh where:
  –  She had more than 14 year’s service with no history of prior performance or conduct concerns.
  –  She was not given a proper opportunity to view the video evidence before the dismissal.
  –  She was the only person dismissed even though the evidence was clear that other persons had consumed items of stock at work.

The Commissioner awarded 22 weeks’ pay plus superannuation as compensation.

The case is a good example of the risks to employers of:

• The caution that needs to be exercised when relying upon video evidence, including giving the employee a proper opportunity to view it, and
• Treating employees differently for similar conduct.