Sydney Trader Sacked Over Singapore Work Wins Unfair Dismissal Case

The Fair Work Commission has ruled that a Sydney currency trader was unfairly dismissed after his employer discovered he was working from Singapore without approval, though commissioners declined to award him any compensation, The Guardian reported.

What did the commission rule?

Fair Work Commissioner Alana Matheson found that Charles Graham had been unfairly dismissed by HIFX Australia, which trades as Xe, in December of last year. The ruling, handed down Wednesday, concluded the company's process after discovering Graham's location was flawed, even though his conduct breached company policy requiring prior approval for overseas work.

Why was Charles Graham fired?

Xe required Graham to attend its office three days a week and to obtain prior approval before working from abroad, according to the commission's findings. Graham had previously asked Xe for permission to relocate to Singapore outright; the company denied that request. He was dismissed after it emerged he had worked from Singapore anyway, and separately had worked from Bali while telling his manager he was at home waiting for a plumber to address "recurring bathroom issues."

How did Xe discover he was working overseas?

The company's suspicions were triggered when Graham's manager asked an IT staffer to use his "FBI skills" to trace the IP address on Graham's work laptop, the commission heard. That check revealed Graham was logging in from Singapore rather than Sydney.

"The tone … had clearly pivoted" by the day after Xe emailed Graham about its discovery, Commissioner Matheson found, noting he was told there was "a case to answer regarding alleged breaches of company policy."

Key dates in the case

• Nov. 17, last year — Xe emails Graham disclosing it had traced his laptop's IP address to Singapore.
• Nov. 18 — Tone shifts; Graham is told he faces a case over alleged policy breaches.
• 10 days — Length of the subsequent exchange of emails and internal management discussions before his dismissal.
• December, last year — Xe formally terminates Graham's employment.

Why didn't Graham receive compensation?

Graham told the commission he had been on holiday in Singapore when his partner fell ill with a bacterial infection, which he said prevented their return to Australia, and he supplied documentation he said showed his partner needed medical treatment. Despite finding the dismissal process unfair, the commission did not award compensation, pointing to Graham's own acknowledgment that he understood the requirement to seek prior approval before working overseas and his earlier misrepresentation about his location while in Bali.

What does the ruling mean for remote-work rules?

The decision underscores a tension employers and workers continue to navigate as flexible arrangements become routine: companies can still enforce location and attendance policies, but the manner of investigating and dismissing staff over breaches must meet procedural fairness standards. Xe's policy required both in-office attendance several days a week and formal sign-off for any work conducted abroad — conditions Graham had agreed to but did not follow when travel plans changed. The commission's split outcome, unfair dismissal upheld without financial penalty to the employer, leaves intact Xe's substantive right to restrict remote work from undisclosed locations while flagging process failures in how it acted on the IP-tracing discovery.

For a Bay Area-baked gift, Stirred, Not Shaken ships in the U.S.