The Fair Work Commission’s decision in Cheryl Sazdanoff v Doc Pty Limited [2026] FWC 1128 serves as a significant reminder that allegations of theft in the workplace require more than mere suspicion, and that procedural fairness is essential, even in apparent cases of serious misconduct.
Background
Ms Sazdanoff, a long-serving pharmacy assistant with over 14 years’ service and no prior disciplinary history, was summarily dismissed for alleged theft.
The employer relied on CCTV footage which appeared to show the employee stealing confectionary items from the Docs John Hunter Hospital Pharmacy and consuming these items during shifts without immediate payment.
Following a very brief meeting to discuss her conduct, she was dismissed shortly thereafter by being handed a dismissal letter citing serious misconduct.
Commissioner’s consideration
The main issue was whether Ms Sazdanoff’s actions constituted theft and, therefore, serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
The Commission found that while the CCTV showed her consuming items, it did not prove an intention not to pay for them at a later time. Importantly, the dismissal was for theft, not for breaching policy. The Commission noted that items were consumed openly, without concealment and at least one item was paid for later. This suggested a workplace practice of consuming items and paying later.
Findings
The Commission found that serious misconduct had not been made out, because the employer had failed to establish that the employee had intended to steal the items, rather than consume them and pay for them later.
Some key factors discussed were the existence of a tolerated workplace practice where staff paid for items later, and other employees engaging in similar conduct were only warned, not dismissed, further undermining the proportionality of the response.
The process was also flawed in that the employee was not properly shown the footage and had a limited opportunity to respond. These procedural deficiencies contributed to the finding that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
While reinstatement was not ordered, Ms Sazdanoff was awarded compensation of approximately 22 weeks’ pay, amounting to just under $24,000, plus super.
Key takeaways
The decision reinforces that:
- Allegations of theft require clear evidence of intent, not just a suspicion (even suspicion that may be supported by CCTV footage).
- Workplace practices can override written policies if tolerated in the workplace.
- Procedural fairness is critical, even in apparent cases of serious misconduct. Giving an employee a reasonable opportunity to properly understand and respond to the relevant conduct helps to mitigate risk.
Read more here: 2026fwc1128.pdf
If you have any concerns or questions, the team at Emplawyer are ready to help.
