Anyone who works in retail knows the old saying “the customer is always right” is often wrong. Never is this more obvious than when the customer is engaging in a crime such as shoplifting. In my early 20s I worked at a suburban Woolworths until midnight several nights a week. I saw shoppers push trolleys full of goods through the turnstile without paying. I detected shoppers hiding items inside cooked chickens. I saw all sorts of things shoved down people’s pants. Back then, in the late 1990s, the two young male duty managers I worked with on the night shifts used to chase these individuals out into the dark car park and tackle them to the ground, holding them down until the police arrived. That was the way it was done.
It might have been OK then, but, it’s not OK now. In a recent Fair Work Commission decision, a Coles worker in Sydney employed for 10 years was fired after he grabbed and held onto a suspected shoplifter for a couple of minutes outside the store, at a neighbouring Liquorland. Coles suspended him and told him to stay away from the store while they investigated, but he turned up the next day anyway, and Coles then sacked him for the shoplifter incident and ignoring the suspension. The Fair Work Commission found a valid reason for dismissal existed, but that it was nonetheless a harsh outcome based on a previous 10-year clean record of service. He was compensated just over $6480.
Many have been surprised by this decision, particularly during a week when another citizen, a barber in Wangaratta, gained fame for holding an individual to the ground after they allegedly rammed independent MP Helen Haines with a vehicle, potentially saving her life. The saviour of Helen Haines was a hero while the employee from Coles was sacked for serious misconduct. I understand the instinct to support the Coles worker. But I disagree with it, and the law does too.
There is no doubt that crime in retail is increasing. The 2025 Retail Crime Symposium reported that aggression and violent behaviour is rising, with 70 per cent of retailers reporting an increase in customer theft and 51 per cent of retailers saying they experience physical abuse at least every month. Although there are “citizen arrest” laws in most states, these laws are not recommended for retail crimes. For example, in NSW, a member of the public can arrest someone committing or having just committed an offence, using only reasonably necessary force and taking them and any property found on them before an authorised officer as soon as reasonably practicable.
The NSW Police Force’s “Protect Your Business” guidance emphasises caution over confrontation when dealing with suspected shoplifters. It states that staff should never approach alone, should always have a witness present, and should not touch, search or accuse the person. Instead, they are advised to identify themselves, politely raise the possibility that goods have not been paid for, invite the person back to resolve the matter and await police.
Victoria Police recommends that staff call Triple Zero and that retailers roster at least two staff per shift where possible so the store is never left unattended, and train staff on theft prevention, using realistic scenarios to prepare staff for incidents like robberies or aggressive behaviour .
There are obvious risks to the safety of employees who confront thieves and employers like Coles must comply with strict occupational health and safety laws. Under these laws, employees must also “take reasonable care for their own safety”. Tackling dangerous, unpredictable and potentially armed individuals to the ground poses an obvious risk. An injured employee may be liable to make a workers’ compensation claim against their employer.
The risk of an employee’s good intentions turning bad is obvious. Two months ago, Van Viet Truong rushed to the aid of a fellow retail worker trying to stop a group of youths from stealing clothes in a grocery store in Sunshine, in Melbourne’s west. He was attacked and later died in hospital. While not a workplace, a good Samaritan was in March stabbed to death while trying to protect a 14-year-old boy from a group attack at Mernda train station in Melbourne’s outer north.
If you think confronting thieves is heroic, it’s worth considering the similar risks with home invasions. In 2025, a group of teenage boys broke into the home of a doctor in Doncaster to steal property and vehicle keys. The doctor chased them outside, and attempted a citizen’s arrest. He was stabbed to death by a 16-year-old. In December 2025, Supreme Court Justice Amanda Fox sentenced the offender to 17 years in prison with a non-parole period of 12 years.
As one of my clients, a major security company patrolling private homes in wealthy Melbourne suburbs told me recently, if someone breaks into your home, don’t be a hero. Don’t throw them a punch. Throw them the car keys. It might just save your life.
The same advice applies in the aisle of your supermarket, behind the counter of your bottle shop, or on the floor of your clothing store. No employer’s stock, no matter how valuable, is worth your safety. And no act of instinctive bravery, however admirable, is worth dying for.
The lesson from all of these cases is not that workers should be punished for their bravery. It is that we should never be putting workers in a position where bravery feels necessary in the first place. This is the job for law enforcement and diligent employers, not vigilante employees.
Paul O’Halloran is a partner at law firm Dentons Australia.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
Paul O’Halloran is a partner and accredited specialist in workplace relations at law firm Dentons.From our partners
About the Author
