Russia’s war blows up woman’s unfair dismissal case

By the Editorial Team · Tuesday, June 23, 2026

A dispute over differing views on the Russia-Ukraine war between two employees at a Melbourne tailoring business led to a legal challenge when one claimed she was unfairly dismissed after the incident. The Fair Work Commission ruled in favor of the employer, finding no evidence that the employee was forced to resign or terminated, and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

A workplace dispute at a Melbourne tailoring business escalated into a legal challenge after a disagreement over the Russia-Ukraine war led to a conflicting claim of unfair dismissal. The matter was recently reviewed by the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

The incident began when two employees of ATIV, a tailoring company, engaged in a heated argument over the conflict in Ukraine. Elmira Ilinova, a Russian immigrant, and her co-worker Marina Khishchenko clashed over the origins of the war, with Ilinova asserting that Ukraine was responsible and should concede, while Khishchenko maintained that Russia had instigated the conflict. According to the FWC's summary, the disagreement intensified with raised voices, causing discomfort within the workplace. At one point, a customer waiting in reception left the store amid the dispute.

Oksana Pashoulia, director of ATIV, intervened and informed Ilinova that the noise was unacceptable and emphasized the need for a "nice quiet shop." Several days later, when Ilinova returned to work, Pashoulia addressed the previous argument and expressed dissatisfaction. The interaction that followed resulted in Ilinova gathering her possessions and leaving the premises.

A conflict arose over Ilinova’s employment status after this incident. While Pashoulia stated she did not terminate Ilinova’s employment and expected her to come back, Ilinova contended she was dismissed and subsequently filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission.

Deputy President Alan Colman reviewed the evidence and sided with the employer’s account. He concluded that the argument, though intense, did not amount to a dismissal nor did it compel Ilinova to resign. Colman rejected the claim that the workplace environment was hostile to the extent that it forced Ilinova’s departure, noting that disputes had occurred previously and management had sought to prevent further conflict.

“There were no circumstances of compulsion that gave Ms Ilinova no choice but to resign,” Colman stated in his decision. The commission found no basis to uphold the unfair dismissal allegation.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.