A Sydney-based currency trader has won a ruling for unfair dismissal after being terminated by his employer for secretly working from Singapore while claiming to be working from home in Australia. The Fair Work Commission’s decision underscored that even though Charles Graham breached company policy, his employer, HIFX Australia (trading as Xe), did not afford him a fair opportunity to respond.
—
## Working abroad without approval
Graham had asked Xe in September 2025 if he could be based in Singapore for a year. His request was rejected because the company insisted his role was tied to Sydney and it lacked licensing in Singapore.
Despite the denial, Graham claimed an eye injury required him to work from home, backed by a medical certificate. He then went on annual leave and traveled to Singapore. He was meant to return by November 17, 2025, but never made it back to Australia.
—
## Discovery and explanation
Concerned by his failure to log in from Australia, his manager reportedly emailed an IT employee, writing: “Our mate should be online today, first day since his holiday, so I will need your FBI skills.” Tracing his work laptop eventually tied it to an Ibis hotel in Singapore.
Graham explained the prolonged stay by saying his partner fell ill with a bacterial infection, making return travel impossible. He also said he believed changes over the weekend meant he couldn’t reach out outside business hours, and that by the time he could log in from Singapore, he was overwhelmed by work—emails, calls, and a client complaint.
—
## Policy violations and suspected deception
Xe rejected his rationale, pointing out that he failed to share flight details or adequate medical proof of his partner’s illness. In a termination notice dated December 2, 2025, the company accused him of:
– breaching company policies
– failing to obey reasonable instructions
– irreparably damaging trust and confidence
Commissioner Alana Matheson noted that through earlier episodes—such as working from Bali while citing plumbing issues—Graham had shown awareness of the requirement to obtain formal permission before working overseas. These patterns were seen as evidence of deliberate concealment.
—
## Fair Work Commission’s ruling
On October 7, 2026, the Fair Work Commission found that while Xe had valid grounds to dismiss Graham, the company’s process was procedurally unfair. Key issues included:
– Failure to clearly communicate all allegations ahead of dismissal
– Denying Graham a proper chance to respond
– Internal communications suggesting a decision was predetermined before he had the opportunity to defend himself
The Commission awarded Graham four weeks of his pay in lieu of notice. However, they decided against reinstating him or granting further compensation, in part because his misconduct contributed to the dismissal.
—
## Bigger implications
This case highlights legal and ethical challenges surrounding remote work and employee monitoring. In a world where working from home (or abroad) has become common, employers continue to balance trust with policy compliance. Misreporting work location and potentially misleading an employer—especially when international rules or licensing are involved—can breach contract or policy terms. But so too can rushing dismissal decisions without giving employees fair access to reply.
Graham’s case serves as a reminder that even when substantive policy violations occur, the fairness of the termination process itself carries legal weight. In today’s hybrid and remote work environments, clarity in policy communication and procedural fairness remain essential.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
