Temu-inspired retailer’s ‘flagrant disregard’ for law slammed by Fair Work Commission

Sacked just two days after Christmas for unsubstantiated allegations, a retail worker who was forced to move interstate without her passport and visa records has won $14,000 for the unfair dismissal.

A retail worker who was fired from her job at Panda Mart in Cranbourne, Victoria, for unsubstantiated allegations has won $14,000 in compensation.

Her former employer, Panda Mart Trading Pty Ltd (Panda Mart), is an international discount retail store operating three stores across Victoria and Queensland.

“[Panda Mart] purports to be a ‘Temu’ retailer in real life, operating megastores in which consumers can buy a wide range of discount goods. Its Victorian stores have previously been subject to public warnings issued by Consumer Affairs Victoria and subject to court-ordered closure,” Scott Connolly, commissioner at the Fair Work Commission, said in his 19 June 2026 decision.

Over the course of her employment, the worker did not receive payslips, relevant loadings, penalties or any entitlements under the National Employment Standards or the relevant modern award.

During the Fair Work Commission proceedings, the worker revealed to the commission that her former employer continued to hold custody of her passport and visa records.

The worker was rostered for work on 27 December 2025, but upon arrival, was greeted with the news of her termination. Her local store managers confirmed this in the store’s nearby car park, telling her to return her uniform, not present for work, and not return.

The worker told the commission that she understands that she was dismissed on the grounds of alleged poor attendance and performance.

The worker filed her unfair dismissal application the day after the dismissal.

As she was on a Working Holiday Visa, the dismissal forced her to move interstate. The commissioner found that the worker failed to find comparable alternative work interstate, despite making efforts to mitigate her loss: performing intermittent delivery work two days a week, fruit picking work five days per week, and Uber driving approximately 10 hours per week from February, before eventually securing a part-time role in early April of this year.

The commissioner found that Panda Mart failed to provide evidence to prove these allegations of poor performance and attendance.

On the contrary, he found that the worker performed her work without issue or warning, worked as directed, and did what she was asked when she was required.

Shortly after her dismissal, the worker sent an email to Jessica Yao, to whom the local store managers reported.

Part of this read: “Given this incident, and prior statements made by the same manager to other staff indicating an intention to remove us from our roles, we have serious concerns about ongoing workplace bullying and our psychological safety.”

In an email to the commissioner’s chambers, Panda Mart said that it does not recognise the worker as its employee.

“We wish to clarify that we do not recognise the person named as the Applicant in this matter,” Yao wrote in the email.

“We take these matters seriously and do not accept any improper pressure, intimidation or attempt to obtain payment from the business based on unsubstantiated claims.”

Despite Panda Mart rejecting her existence on its books, the commission said: “She had intended to work for the Respondent indefinitely and faced significant challenges since being dismissed.”

In addition, the commissioner noted that Panda Mart continued in its failure to file any evidence in support of its position and failed to attend the proceedings.

In light of these failings, the commissioner determined that the dismissal was not for a valid reason because of Panda Mart’s failure to submit, failure to notify the worker of the reasons for her dismissal, and failure to provide her with an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

“In the present case, no reasons are presented, valid or otherwise, as to why [the worker] has been dismissed,” Connolly found.

“The complete lack of procedural fairness and due process provided to [the worker] prior to being told she was dismissed just days after Christmas. The impact of the dismissal on [the worker], and finally, [the worker’s] reports in proceedings that the Respondent retains her passport and visa details.”

“These are serious matters. They suggest a flagrant disregard of the laws of the Commonwealth and the rights of workers to perform work within borders. They warrant further and urgent investigation. A request of the General Manager of the FWC to refer the Respondent to the relevant authorities, including the FWO, shall accompany this decision,” the commissioner said.

Thus, the commissioner approved the worker’s application to the commission and ordered Panda Mart to pay her $14,269.46, less taxation, plus superannuation for unfair dismissal.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.

Carlos Tse

Carlos Tse is a graduate journalist writing for Accountants Daily, HR Leader, Lawyers Weekly.