A Sydney-based foreign exchange dealer has won an unfair dismissal claim after his employer discovered he had been working from Singapore without permission, although he will receive no compensation.
Charles Graham was dismissed by global currency company Xe for serious misconduct after his work laptop was traced to an Ibis hotel in Singapore on November 17, 2025.
The company had already raised concerns about his attendance, including occasions when he arrived late and said he was unwell or waiting for a plumber at home. Those incidents followed the introduction of a policy requiring staff to work from the office three days a week.
On an earlier occasion, Mr Graham said he needed to work from home while a plumber repaired his toilet, but he was actually in Bali.
Mr Graham challenged his dismissal before the Fair Work Commission in Sydney, arguing that Xe had discovered his location through ‘illegal tracking surveillance’. He also said he was unaware of the company’s policy on overseas work and had previously worked from Bali five times.
In a decision published on Wednesday, the commission found there was a valid reason for the dismissal because Mr Graham had deliberately failed to disclose that he was overseas.
However, Commissioner Alana Matheson upheld his unfair dismissal claim, ruling that Xe had not followed a fair process before terminating his employment.
Charles Graham was dismissed by global currency company Xe for serious misconduct after his work laptop was traced to Singapore (stock image)
The discovery was made after his manager, Abigail Plummer (pictured), asked the company’s IT department to investigate his location
The commission heard that Mr Graham had asked in September last year to relocate to Singapore for 12 months because his youth mobility visa was due to expire in mid-November.
Xe rejected the request, explaining that his position was based in Sydney and that the company did not hold a licence to operate in Singapore.
Mr Graham subsequently worked from home for three months after providing a medical certificate relating to an eye injury, before taking annual leave.
When he was expected to return in mid-November, his manager, Abigail Plummer, asked Xe’s IT department to establish where he was working from.
‘Morninggg, our mate should be online today, first day since his holiday so I will need your FBI skills,’ she wrote.
DISCOVER MORE: Andrew Cabot: Net Worth, Age, Marriage, and Role as Privateer Rum CEO – NewsFinale
The investigation found that Mr Graham was logging on from Singapore, rather than from Australia.
Mr Graham said his partner had become ill while they were overseas, forcing them to postpone their return to Australia.
He told the commission he intended to inform his manager but became occupied with urgent work after logging on.
The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Graham had been unfairly dismissed but ruled he would not receive compensation (file image of the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne)
Xe rejected that explanation. According to the termination letter cited by the commission, Mr Graham had failed to adequately explain why he concealed his location or provide sufficient evidence that his partner had been too ill to fly.
In his unfair dismissal application, Mr Graham also said he had worked from Bali on five previous occasions without facing disciplinary action.
But his manager told the commission she had been unaware he was overseas.
On one occasion while he was in Bali, he had messaged her claiming he needed to work from home because a ‘plumber [was] coming around to sort out some recurring bathroom issues’.
Commissioner Alana Matheson found his decision to hide the fact he was in Bali showed he understood he needed approval to work from another country.
‘I consider that (Mr Graham’s) failure to disclose his location before he was caught working from Singapore was deliberate and amounted to dishonesty,’ she said.
Although the commissioner accepted there were legitimate grounds for sacking Mr Graham, she found Xe failed to follow a fair process by not fully explaining the case against him or giving him a proper chance to defend himself.
Messages exchanged between managers, including ‘just need to sort strategy once IT confirm’ and ‘I’ll reply, give him a bit of hope to turn up to the meeting’, further indicated the company may have already decided to dismiss him before hearing his side of the story, she said.
But in the commissioner’s decision, she said Mr Graham would not receive compensation because a fairer dismissal process was unlikely to have changed the outcome.