FWC upholds dismissal after armed robbery derails workers comp claim
MELBOURNE: An armed robbery, a workers’ comp claim quietly closed, then dismissal. The FWC sided with Endeavour Group on 16 April 2026.
Emma Turner was a casual team member at Dan Murphy’s in Ballina, New South Wales. She had worked there for more than three years when, on 18 June 2025, she was threatened with a knife during an armed robbery at the store.
She completed her next rostered shift on 24 June 2025 but became distressed towards the end of her shift on 25 June 2025. Turner told her employer, Endeavour Group Limited, she no longer felt safe working evenings and requested day shifts. On 3 July 2025, she arrived for a rostered day shift but was told it had been allocated to a different employee. She worked a day shift on 5 July 2025 and was certified unfit for work from 9 July 2025. She did not return when her medical certificates expired.
Contact between the parties was limited over the following months. After an unanswered phone call and text message on 3 November 2025, a new store manager emailed Turner on 7 November 2025. Turner’s reply was unambiguous: “At this time, I do not have any intention to return to my role at Dan Murphy’s Ballina.” She had by then re-established herself in legal practice, working four days a week as a solicitor.
On 19 November 2025, Endeavour terminated Turner’s employment, citing her inability to provide work availability or a return-to-work date. Turner filed an unfair dismissal application on 10 December 2025 under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Commissioner Crawford dismissed the application on 16 April 2026. The Commissioner found a valid reason for dismissal in Turner’s ongoing incapacity, and that Endeavour had met its procedural fairness obligations, notifying Turner of the reason before the decision was made and giving her an opportunity to respond. Turner had protection from unfair dismissal through her regular and systematic casual employment under the Dan Murphy’s Enterprise Agreement 2019.
Notably, the Commissioner did acknowledge that Turner’s exposure to an armed robbery at work was a factor weighing in favour of finding her dismissal harsh — it was that traumatic incident which ultimately caused her to be dismissed. However, that factor was outweighed by the valid reason and procedural fairness findings.
Beyond the formal findings, however, Commissioner Crawford made observations that carry direct relevance for HR.
Turner had not submitted a workers’ compensation claim until around 24 November 2025, approximately five days after her dismissal. As far back as 24 July 2025, while Turner was still certified unfit for work, the insurer EML Solutions had closed her injury notification, advising that no compensation would be paid. The Commissioner noted it was unclear who had told EML that Turner did not wish to proceed. Turner’s evidence was that it was not her, and it appeared Endeavour representatives had notified EML of her injury — not Turner herself.
The legal consequences were significant. In New South Wales, it is an offence to dismiss an injured worker within six months of a compensable injury. Commissioner Crawford found it “highly likely Ms Turner’s employment with Endeavour would not have been terminated on 19 November 2025 if she had an active workers’ compensation claim.” An active claim would also have likely entitled Turner to a return-to-work plan and suitable duties.
Turner had delayed pursuing the claim because she found it too traumatic to revisit the robbery. The Commissioner was clear that this was not a criticism of her.
The case raises practical questions: who in your organisation ensures that a workers’ compensation claim remains active and has not been prematurely closed; how your teams distinguish between an employee who has effectively stepped back from a role and one who is clinically withdrawn after a workplace trauma; and whether your casual dismissal processes account for the NSW six-month statutory prohibition on dismissing injured workers.
Commissioner Crawford encouraged Turner to pursue her rights under the workers’ compensation system. The application was dismissed.
