A Victorian retailer that dismissed a cash-in-hand worker and continued to hold her passport and visa documents has been ordered to pay her more than $14,000. The worker’s manager told her she had been fired while in a carpark, two days after Christmas. The retailer ignored the Fair Work Commission’s directions and did not challenge the worker’s evidence. The Commission also referred the retailer to the Fair Work Ombudsman over the passport and other issues
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal VIC case Ms. Yi-Ting Yang v Panda Mart Trading Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we’ll explore the case of a Russian-born worker who claimed unjustified termination after a heated workplace argument about the Ukraine War.
Yi-Ting Yang started working for a Panda Mart retail store in Melbourne in February 2025. She worked effectively full-time hours, between eight and ten hours, five days a week. Ms. Yang was paid entirely in cash, starting on $24 an hour before rising to $26. She received no payslips and none of the loadings, penalties or entitlements owed to her under the National Employment Standards or the relevant modern award.
On 27 December 2025, Ms. Yang turned up for a rostered shift and was told by colleagues that she had already been fired. Two store managers, Grace Lui and Li-Pin, confirmed the termination in the car park, telling her to hand back her uniform and not return. In her Fair Work claim, Ms. Yang said she understood the reason to be poor attendance and performance. She denied these allegations and noted that she never received a warning about either.
After colleagues told her a mistake may have been made, Ms. Yang emailed Jessica Yao, who the store managers reported to. She told Ms. Yao that she and colleagues were “verbally informed” by the store managers that their employment was terminated. Ms. Yang raised “serious concerns” about ongoing workplace bullying and their psychological safety. She said that “we do not feel it is safe or reasonable” to return to the workplace.
Ms. Yang also asked for written confirmation of her employment status, but Ms. Yao never replied. Ms. Yang filed her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim the very next day. She later relocated interstate and struggled to find comparable work. During Fair Work proceedings, she said that Panda Mart continued to hold her passport and visa records after her sacking.
Panda Mart failed to properly respond to Ms. Yang’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. Its only engagement came via a 4 May 2026 email from Ms. Yao. She stated the company did “not recognise the person named as the Applicant in this matter,” suggesting that the applicant could be one of two past workers.
Ms. Yao alleged there were “serious concerns” regarding one of these worker’s identity, work rights and compliance with visa conditions. She claimed they may have been on a working holiday visa, which generally limits work with the same employer to a maximum period of six months. Ms. Yao alleged that the individual “refused to cease working after that period.”
She also claimed that another one of the employees was on a student visa and worked hours in excess of their permitted visa conditions. Ms. Yao claimed that person “requested that we conceal or facilitate that arrangement.” Ms. Yao argued that Panda Mart could not employ these individuals as they would be forced to breach the law. She also denied “any improper pressure, intimidation or attempt to obtain payment.” In her email, Ms. Yao made no mention of returning the passport and visa documents the company still held.
Panda Mart never attended any scheduled Fair Work Commission conferences, despite repeated notice. The matter proceeded in its absence, with Ms. Yang giving evidence assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. She filed rosters, photographs, internal communications and visa references supporting her identity and employment history.
The Commission noted the only issue Panda Mart has raised is that it “does not recognise Ms. Yang as their employee.” It also highlighted the fact that the company “filed no additional information” or material to argue its case. It was during this hearing that Ms. Yang confirmed to the Commission that her passport and visa records remained in Panda Mart’s possession.
Ms. Yang’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in June 2026. It found her termination of employment was harsh, unjust and unreasonable for the following reasons:
Regarding Ms. Yang’s allegation that Panda Mart retained her passport and visa details, the Fair Work Commission said it was a “serious” matter.” Together with the fact she had been paid in cash, the company was described as having a “flagrant disregard” of Australian laws. The Commission found this warranted “further and urgent investigation.” It confirmed a referral of Panda Mart to the Fair Work Ombudsman would accompany the unjustified termination decision.
Turning to a remedy for Ms. Yang’s termination of employment, the Commission accepted she would likely have remained employed for a further six months. It ordered Panda Mart to pay her $14,269.46, plus $1,712.34 in superannuation, within 14 days. The decision made no order requiring the return of Ms. Yang’s passport, with that matter left to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Another recent case that involved immigrant workers is Elmira Ilinova v ATIV Pty Ltd [2026]. A Russian-born employee of a Melbourne business argued she had been dismissed after a workplace argument about the Ukraine war. She claimed she had been made to feel unwelcome due to her Russian nationality and forced to leave a hostile work environment. The Fair Work Commission rejected her unfair dismissal claim, finding she had not been dismissed by her employer and had left the workplace of her own accord.
Russian national Elmira Ilinova worked at Melbourne tailoring business ATIV run by director Oksana Pashoulia. On Thursday 26 March 2026, staff were listening to Russian news coverage of the war in Ukraine on the radio. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Ms. Pashoulia said that she heard Ms. Ilinova say that Ukraine had started the war and needed to concede. This prompted coworker Marina Khishchenko to respond that it was Russia that had started the war.
An argument followed. Ms. Pashoulia said Ms. Ilinova “raised her voice repeatedly” as the exchange escalated. At one point a customer waiting in reception left the store. Ms. Pashoulia told Ms. Ilinova that a customer had left because of her yelling and that she needed “a nice quiet shop.” Ms. Ilinova, however, offered a different story. She claimed that Ms. Khishchenko told her to go back to Russia and made derogatory remarks about Russian people.
The next day, a Friday, Ms. Ilinova returned to work and the incident was not discussed. However, on Monday, Ms. Pashoulia told Ms. Ilinova that she was unhappy about the argument. According to Ms. Pashoulia, Ms. Ilinova began packing her belongings and said, “I need to have a job.” Ms. Pashoulia responded that she did have a job, and that she could either sit down and work, or leave. Ms. Ilinova then left the premises.
In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Ilinova alleged that Ms. Pashoulia asked her how she could support Russia when everyone else at the business was from Ukraine. She also claimed Ms. Pashoulia made negative comments about Russians and told her they could not continue working together. Ms. Ilinova said she asked whether she was being fired, to which Ms. Pashoulia replied, “No, you are leaving yourself.”
As part of her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Ilinova produced text messages sent to Ms. Pashoulia referencing her “termination” and alleging she had been forced to leave due to being “abused” and a hostile work environment. Ms. Pashoulia replied to the text stating that leaving had been “entirely” Ms. Ilinova’s own decision.
Ms. Pashoulia denied telling Ms. Ilinova that they could not work together, but rather that she had said they could not continue working “like this.” Ms. Khishchenko backed her boss, telling the Commission that it was Ms. Ilinova who said it was better for her to go.
Ms. Ilinova’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in June 2026. It ruled that she had not faced termination of employment on the employer’s initiative, nor was she forced to resign. Given this, her unjustified termination claim was rejected. The Commission based this judgement on the following findings:
No, under Australian workplace laws, an employer may check or copy your passport to verify your identity and work rights. But it is illegal for them to take and keep the original document. This applies regardless of your visa status, and the Fair Work Ombudsman treats confiscation of a worker’s passport as a form of workplace exploitation. If an employer refuses to return your passport, this can be reported to the Fair Work Ombudsman or police.
In Yi-Ting Yang v Panda Mart Trading Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found the employer had continued to hold Ms. Yang’s passport and visa records after firing her. It described this as a “serious” matter and referred the company to the Fair Work Ombudsman for further urgent investigation.
Paying wages in cash is not illegal in Australia. However, employers must still meet all their obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009, regardless of how wages are paid. This includes providing a payslip within one day of payment, paying at least the correct award or agreement rate, and making superannuation contributions on the employee’s behalf. Employees who suspect their employer is using cash payments to underpay them or avoid entitlements can make an anonymous report to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
In Yi-Ting Yang v Panda Mart Trading Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found the worker had been paid entirely in cash and received none of the entitlements owed to her under the relevant modern award. The Commission described the conduct as a “flagrant disregard of Australian laws” and confirmed the matter would be referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Read more: Can a Cash in Hand Nanny Make a General Protections Claim?
We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives help employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections, forced resignation and workplace rights claims. With strict deadlines applying to most Fair Work claims, getting advice early is essential.
Your initial consultation with us is free and confidential. Contact us today on 1800 333 666 for a no-obligation discussion about your situation.
