The Fair Work Commission has made a serious statement to ensure migrant workers understand their rights by translating a recent unfair dismissal claim ruling into the Rohingya language. The translation into the little known language, which is native to a Burmese ethnic group, was made to ensure an unfair dismissal claim applicant with “poor” English would understand the concerns his employer had that led to his termination.
In its decision, the Commission considered how the “language and culture issues” experienced by the worker contributed to his dismissal. It also took into account the fact that he was financially supporting his family, who were in a refugee camp in Bangladesh.
As Australia’s workforce becomes increasingly diverse, we’re seeing the Fair Work Commission make an effort to cater to the challenges of migrant workers. In addition to this recent ruling, we’ve also seen the Fair Work Ombudsman crack down on employers who exploit migrant workers (which we’ll cover later in this article)
As of June 2024, Australia’s population was approximately 31.5% overseas-born, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). This closely mirrors the percentage of employed Australians who were born overseas. The most common countries of birth (excluding Australia) that contribute significantly to the population and workforce, according to the 2021 Census, were:
Given that roughly one third of Australia’s workforce was born overseas, it’s not a surprise that the federal government is taking measures to accommodate those who may struggle with English. This is what happened in the unfair dismissal NSW case Mr. Alam Shah v Real Dairy Production Pty Ltd [2025]. Alam Shah started working at Real Dairy’s food processing facility in Sydney in February 2024. He is an Australian citizen of Rohingya descent – a Burmese ethnic group. Fair Work Commission records described him as speaking “poor” English.
In September 2024, a complaint was raised regarding Mr. Shah’s conduct. It was claimed that he acted aggressively and argumentatively towards coworkers. This led to an investigation and a disciplinary meeting. A first and final warning was issued to Mr. Shah on 15 October 2024. Following this, Real Dairy attempted to address the issue by moving him to another area of the factory. The company believed the “urgency” associated with the work he was performing may have contributed to his behaviour.
Real Dairy claimed that unresolved conduct issues led to Mr. Shah’s eventual termination of employment. The company pointed to an incident on 9 April 2025 where Mr. Shah was allegedly uncooperative and had a verbal altercation with his supervisor. Details of this specific incident were not presented to the Fair Work Commission. Crucially, on 17 April 2025, Mr. Shah was involved in a workplace accident, having been struck by a forklift. He was subsequently off work on compensation and returned to his duties on 28 April 2025.
Mr. Shah was told of his summary termination of employment via email on 2 May 2025. Real Dairy told him that his role “does not suit everyone” and mentioned multiple failed attempts to move Mr. Shah to different areas. He subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim with the Commission.
In August 2025, Mr. Shah’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim proceeded to a conference with Real Dairy, arbitrated by the Fair Work Commission. He represented himself but was assisted by an interpreter. Mr. Shah stated that he was not given prior notice nor any explanation for his sacking. He also claimed that he was not given an opportunity to address any concerns or issues that may have led to the decision to sack him.
While accepting he was previously spoken to about his conduct in 2024, he claimed not to have received the formal written warning letter from that time. The Commission later confirmed that Mr. Shah had in fact received it.
In its written response to Mr. Shah’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Real Dairy told the Fair Work Commission that he had acted aggressive, belligerent and nonconforming. The company said it had raised concerns on eight occasions in ten months. It said that it had no option but to dismiss him due to his aggression towards workmates.
However, during the conference, the evidence presented by the company was limited. Real Dairy relied upon an unsigned statement from Mr. Shah’s supervisor and an email from a colleague. The Commission noted these statements were in “very general terms.” It determined that these statements did not prove the assertions made in the company’s written response.
At Mr. Shah’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim hearing, the Fair Work Commission focused primarily on the conduct alleged to have occurred on 9 April 2025. In the absence of evidence, it determined that Real Dairy didn’t have a valid reason to terminate Mr. Shah. The Commission also found that Mr. Shah was neither notified of the reason for his sacking nor given an opportunity to respond to the reason prior to termination.
The Commission also gave significant weight to Mr. Shah’s personal circumstances. In particular, his poor English. It said that “language and cultural issues” exacerbated the situation leading to his dismissal. Other factors included his efforts to support family in a refugee camp in Bangladesh and the practical difficulty he would face securing new employment.
The Fair Work Commission accepted that Mr. Shah may have been “difficult” to manage. However, it maintained that Real Dairy should have “done better” in communicating its expectations of Mr. Shah. Finding he had been unfairly dismissed, the Commission ordered that he be reinstated to his role. However, Mr. Shah expressed concerns he would be fired again shortly after returning. This fear was dismissed by the Commission, which said that it could not “detect any malice” in the actions of Real Dairy. It also ordered that Mr. Shah be paid $18,035.56 in lost remuneration.
Given the communication challenges Mr. Shah had with Real Dairy, the Fair Work Commission decided to publish its decision in his native language. This was so he could “be aware” of the concerns Real Dairy had about his conduct that led to his termination of employment. The Commission also said that the company needed to ensure that it communicates those concerns to Mr. Shah “in a way that it is clear” so that he understands them.
One of the biggest segments of Australia’s diverse workforce are international students. In the year preceding July 2025, there were around 791,000 international students studying in Australia. 61% of these students were working while studying.
According to 2025 federal government statistics, international students are the second largest group of temporary visa holders in Australia, after New Zealand citizens. In 2023 – 2024, they made up about 90% of wages and salaries paid to non-residents.
International students are often exploited by employers due to their lack of knowledge of worker rights and vulnerable financial position. One recent example of this was the Fair Work Ombudsman announcing that it had fined the Chattime bubble tea chain and its managing director $132,840 for systematically underpaying more than 150 employees. A significant majority of them were international students and junior staff.
The penalties came after a ruling by the Federal Circuit and Family Court, which concluded a long-running case initiated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. The Court found that between August and December 2016, Chatime Australia Pty Ltd, the Australian franchisor, was found to have paid employees at 19 company-operated stores across Sydney and Melbourne flat rates as low as $7.59 to $24.30 per hour. This practice deliberately sidestepped mandatory minimum entitlements under the Fast Food Industry Award 2010.
The Fair Work Ombudsman’s proactive audits revealed that a total of 152 employees were underpaid $162,533. The victims included 95 visa holders, many of whom were international students. It also included 41 junior workers aged below 21. Media reports indicated that many of these migrant workers, often from China and Taiwan, were afraid to speak up about the wage theft. They feared that reporting the breaches would lead to deportation due to perceived visa condition violations.
Chatime Australia attempted to downplay the severity of the contraventions in court. The company argued that the underpayment was minor, amounting to “little over $1,000 per employee.” However, the Fair Work Ombudsman’s audit revealed that workers were underpaid up to $3,990 each.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court sharply rejected this claim from Chattime. It found that the underpayment contraventions involved a large number of employees being denied basic Award entitlements. It said that the underpayments were the result of “ignorance and inattention” by management.
The Court ruled that Chatime Australia would be fined $120,960. Meanwhile, its managing director Chen ‘Charlley’ Zhao faced a fine of $11,880 for his direct involvement in some of the underpayments.
The Court said that the significant penalties “set a signal” to leaders of companies, warning them not to contravene terms of an award or any other industrial laws or instruments. The Fair Work Ombudsman reiterated this message, saying that the penalties underscore its serious approach to breaches involving vulnerable workers, particularly in the hospitality sector.
Due to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s audit, all of the underpayments have since been paid to the workers. The agency said that it continues to target exploitation, having filed 146 litigations involving visa holder workers and secured nearly $23 million in penalties in such cases in the seven financial years to June 2024
Not long after Chattime was penalised, in February 2025 the Fair Work Ombudsman announced that it had conducted unannounced inspections of around 40 businesses in Melbourne. This was part of a joint operation with the Australian Border Force conducted in February 2025. The primary goal was to ensure vulnerable migrant employees were receiving their correct wages and workplace entitlements.
The inspections targeted businesses in the Melbourne CBD and surrounding suburbs that employ temporary migrant workers, particularly those sponsoring employees under the Temporary Skills Shortage visa. The focus was on fast-food outlets, cafés and restaurants. However, inspections were also conducted at businesses in the retail, wholesaling, manufacturing and hair and beauty industries.
The inspections involved meticulously checking time and wage records, including payslips. They also checked if workers had been provided with mandated documents like the Fair Work Information Statement. Australian Border Force officers helped ensure visa holders were working in their nominated positions and weren’t being exploited or abused via unsafe practices or excessive hours.
Officers informed employers about their obligations under the new Migration Amendment Act, which took effect in July 2024. The legislation aims to bolster protections for temporary migrant workers. It introduced criminal penalties, including fines of up to $118,800 and up to two years’ jail, for employers who use a person’s immigration status to exploit them.
The inspections in Melbourne follow similar enforcement actions in Sydney and Brisbane in late 2024. The Fair Work Ombudsman said that its investigations following the Melbourne site visits are ongoing.
Read more: Race Discrimination and Racism
You don’t have to deal with it on your own. For over 30 years, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) has helped Australian workers stand up for their rights and achieve fair outcomes. Whether you’ve been unfairly dismissed, bullied, sexually harassed or discriminated against, our experienced workplace advisors are here to listen and guide you through the process.
We’ll explain your options clearly and handle your Fair Work claim with care and confidentiality. Your first consultation is free and completely confidential. Contact us at 1800 333 666 and take the first step toward justice today.
