the Applicant v Endeavour Group Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 1873
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from her role at a BWS store in Prospect Vale, Tasmania, owned by Endeavour Group Limited, following a 'swarming' theft incident in February 2026. She had worked for the company or its predecessors for approximately 17 years. The store experienced increased theft incidents, including swarming events, prompting the implementation of security measures and training modules on responding to theft and armed hold-ups. the Applicant completed these online training modules but struggled with technology. During the swarming incident, she did not follow the company's policy of avoiding direct engagement with offenders.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found Endeavour Group Limited had no valid reason for dismissing the Applicant and deemed the dismissal harsh. the Commissioner noted that while the Applicant understood the policies, there was inconsistency in how employees followed them during incidents, and she was penalised for not adhering to the policy of avoiding direct engagement. The Commission ordered her reinstatement to her former position.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure their workplace policies are clear, consistently applied, and regularly reviewed. Training programs need to be accessible and understood by all employees, considering potential technological challenges. Inconsistent application of policies can undermine fairness and lead to adverse action claims.
What it means for employees
Employees should seek clarification if they are unsure about workplace policies or training requirements. If there is a perceived inconsistency in how policies are applied, it's important to raise concerns through appropriate channels.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc1873.pdfSend your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections