She was told the business was shutting down - it kept trading with a new hire
A long-serving cafe worker lost her job and her visa sponsorship after being told the business was closing. It never did.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on September 11, 2026, that Mary & Marie Cafe Pty Ltd unfairly dismissed an employee who had worked at the Sydney cafe for approximately eight years as a chef, barista and manager. The cafe employed fewer than 15 people.
On March 22, 2026, the business owner told the worker the cafe might be closing at some point. Two days later, on March 24, she was told it would close that week and the cafe could no longer continue her sponsorship or employment. The Commission accepted this amounted to a dismissal.
The worker held a subclass 457 visa tied to the cafe's sponsorship. The Commission noted the dismissal brought an end to a visa sponsorship that "likely has consequences for her capacity to remain in Australia."
The next day, the cafe called and told the worker she could work for about two more weeks "if she needed money" or until another sponsor could be found. She did not return. On March 27, the owner asked why she had not come in. She responded that she had already said she would not be returning.
The business did not close. The Commission's decision noted the worker was told by customers of the cafe that it had hired a new full-time employee shortly after she was dismissed.
The cafe did not respond to the unfair dismissal application or attend scheduled conciliations. The Commission determined the case on the papers on July 20, 2026, accepting the facts as set out in the worker's materials.
The Commission found the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. There was no evidence the cafe held any belief that the worker had engaged in conduct justifying immediate dismissal. The worker was never warned her employment was at risk.
The Commission found no valid reason for the dismissal. The worker was not dismissed for any reason relating to her capacity or conduct. She was told the business was closing and she was no longer required - but the business continued operating and replaced her.
The dismissal was found to be "unreasonable because it came out of the blue, was not accompanied by sufficient notice or consultation, and occurred with almost no regard for [the worker's] long period of valued service and visa-related vulnerability."
The decision also noted the cafe owed the worker $3,500 plus interest in connection with a $9,000 loan she had made to the business before her dismissal. The cafe did not pay what it owed - either on the loan or on her employment entitlements at termination. After the dismissal, the cafe tried to negotiate repayment of the loan by instalments, making what the Commission described as an appeal to her interest in a "practical benefit" to avoid an "open ended legal procedure."
The Commission found the cafe likely did not have access to dedicated human resources specialists or expertise, and that this likely affected the process leading to dismissal.
Reinstatement was not ordered. The Commission cited uncertainty about the position of the business, the impact on the worker's visa sponsorship status, and how the cafe had handled payment of money owed after termination. A published notice by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission indicated that a liquidator was appointed to the business on August 5, 2026.
Compensation was set at $23,197.86 gross. Because the Commission could not determine the worker's actual salary, it assessed her likely earnings by reference to the minimum rate for a Level 6 chef under the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020 - $1,220.94 per week - over the 19-week period from the dismissal on March 24 to the appointment of the liquidator on August 5. No deductions were made for mitigation, misconduct, contingencies, or shock and distress. The amount fell within the statutory compensation cap of 26 weeks' pay.
A separate compensation order was issued.
