Sydney trader unfairly dismissed over unauthorised Singapore remote work, commission rules

Charles Graham wins case against currency firm Xe but is not awarded compensation

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
Sources2 outlets
A Sydney currency trader sacked for working from Singapore without approval has won an unfair dismissal case, but failed to be awarded compensation. The Fair Work Commission ruled on Wednesday that Charles Graham had been unfairly dismissed by HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, in December last year.

Graham was dismissed after his manager asked an IT worker to use his "FBI skills" to track the IP address on Graham's laptop, revealing he was logging on from Singapore. The commission also heard he had previously worked from Bali after telling his manager he was working from home because he had a plumber "coming around to sort out some recurring bathroom issues".

Xe found Graham knew he needed prior approval to work overseas and was required to attend the office three times a week. Graham said he had been holidaying in Singapore when his partner fell ill with a bacterial infection, preventing his return to Australia, and he provided documentation he said showed his partner required medical treatment. He had previously asked Xe to relocate to Singapore, a request that was denied.

Commissioner Alana Matheson said the company's tone "had clearly pivoted" the day after it emailed Graham on 17 November last year to advise him of its discovery, when he was told there was a case to answer regarding alleged breaches of company policy. Over the following 10 days, further email exchanges and a discussion between Xe managers took place.

In his written response, Graham said the trip was a holiday unrelated to his relocation request, the decision to reschedule his return flight was made over a weekend, and there was no expectation that he contact his manager outside business hours. He said that when he logged on from Singapore, he was "bombarded with triaging hundreds of unread emails", fielding calls and dealing with a complaint from a high-value client, which took priority over telling his manager he was overseas. He also said he had not been told about specific policies regarding hybrid work.

The company's termination letter on 2 December said Graham had not provided flight screenshots with his name, medical evidence that his partner was unable to travel, or an adequate explanation for not telling his manager he was in Singapore. It said his earlier compliance with absence and approval processes showed he was familiar with them and had made "a conscious choice not to follow" them.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The ruling tests the boundaries of hybrid and remote work, where employees may log on from locations their employer has not approved.
  • It shows employers can monitor where staff work, but that the process must be fair and the dismissal must withstand scrutiny.
  • The case may push employers to tighten remote work policies and clarify approval requirements.

Background

The case sits at the intersection of two workplace trends: the spread of hybrid work arrangements and employer use of software to track where employees are actually working. Companies increasingly require prior approval for overseas work because tax, security and compliance obligations differ by jurisdiction. The Fair Work Commission is the national tribunal that hears unfair dismissal claims in Australia.

Key Perspectives

Charles Graham: Argued the trip was a holiday, his partner's illness stranded him in Singapore, and urgent work demands took priority over notifying his manager. He had previously been refused permission to relocate there.

HIFX Australia (Xe): Maintained Graham knew he needed approval and had followed similar processes before, making his non-disclosure a conscious choice. It cited missing flight screenshots and medical evidence.

Fair Work Commissioner Alana Matheson: Found the dismissal was unfair, while declining to award compensation, a result that leaves both the employee vindicated and the employer's concerns acknowledged.

What to Watch

  • Whether Xe appeals the decision or changes its remote work approval policies.
  • How employers respond with clearer rules on working from overseas and from home.
  • Whether future commission rulings build on this case to define fairness in remote work dismissals.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.

How we workSubscribe