Panda Mart criticised for ‘egregious’ conduct during unfair dismissal case
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
A casual employee on a holiday visa has successfully achieved an unfair dismissal after allegedly being terminated in a car park without notice or reason.
In what is the chain’s second appearance before the Fair Work Commission, Panda Mart has been ordered to compensate a worker more than $12,000 after being ordered to fulfil $14,000 in remuneration in an almost identical case of misconduct.
The employee in question was a casual cashier and retail assistant, working between 40 and 50 hours per week and paid $26 regardless of day or shift duration. According to the applicant, they did not receive payslips, loadings, penalties, or entitlements as prescribed by the relevant modern award.
The worker alleged they were terminated in a car park by what they believed to be supervisors before their shift on 27 December 2025, without reason or notice.
Following this incident, the employee suggested to their supervisor that there had been a mistake and offered to return to work. After receiving no response, the worker sent an email to a supervisor, Jessica Yao, that included: “We were verbally informed by Grace Lui and Li-Pin in the car park that our employment was terminated.”
“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 … we do not feel it is safe or reasonable to return to the workplace at this time.
“We respectfully request written confirmation of our current employment status and how the company intends to formally address these issues.”
The worker did not receive a reply from Yao despite a follow-up email, and did not return to work since the carpark termination.
An unfair dismissal application was made on 9 January 2026.
Records from the Fair Work Commission indicated difficulty in receiving responses from Panda Mart and representatives on numerous occasions. The organisation did not complete an F3 Employer Response Form despite being given the opportunity, nor did it attend a conciliation on 30 March 2026.
On 14 April, the commissioner’s chambers spoke on the phone to an employer or HR for Panda Mart, Loong Chan, who claimed they had not received any correspondence and provided an alternate email address.
Panda Mart still did not complete the F3 form despite Chan asserting they would, or confirm attendance at a case management conference. No change occurred after the issue of Amended Directions on 24 April.
Several more emails were sent to inform Panda Mart that it would proceed with the conference.
On 10 May, Yao sent an email to the chambers that alleged the applicant was working under a false name, was attempting to work on an expired visa, and refused to leave the workplace despite not being rostered for shifts.
The chambers responded with an updated time frame for the receipt of an F3 Form and any additional documents as evidence. Communication also noted non-compliance with Amended Directions.
Despite also receiving an alternate phone number for Yao, no further correspondence was received from Panda Mart.
In consideration of all available evidence, commissioner Julia Fox determined that the applicant had been unfairly dismissed, and the main consideration was whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
According to Fox, there was no evidence towards Panda Mart’s assertion that the applicant was not dismissed but was unable to continue working due to an expired visa.
Similarly, it was determined that the applicant was not told of any reason for dismissal, nor given a chance to respond.
Fox said: “I consider Panda Mart’s conduct in this matter egregious. Panda Mart is a large international company. Its repeated and blatant failure to respond to the commission is concerning, particularly as it was plainly aware of the matter.”
“It is also troubling to me that the only occasion it chose to respond to [the applicant’s] application, it made baseless assertions that she was using a false name and that her visa conditions did not allow her to work for Panda Mart at the time of her dismissal.
“I also consider the way in which [applicant] was dismissed demonstrates a callous disregard for procedural fairness and [applicant’s] welfare.”
It was further noted that the apparent failure to provide payslips and fulfil industrial requirements breached the Fair Work Act.
In this way, it was determined that compensation was the appropriate remedy in this case, with Panda Mart ordered to pay the applicant $11,598.75 less taxation, plus $1,391.85 in superannuation.
Fox also requested that Panda Mart be referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman.
RELATED TERMS
An employee is a person who has signed a contract with a company to provide services in exchange for pay or benefits. Employees vary from other employees like contractors in that their employer has the legal authority to set their working conditions, hours, and working practises.
When a company terminates an employee's job for improper or illegitimate reasons, it is known as an unfair dismissal.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.
