Sydney-based worker who was caught in Bali after claiming to WFH wins unfair dismissal case after he was sacked when his boss discovered another overseas adventure
Charles Graham, a Sydney-based foreign exchange dealer, won an unfair dismissal claim after Xe sacked him for working from Singapore without approval. The Fair Work Commission found the company had a valid reason to dismiss him because he deliberately concealed his location, but ruled its process was unfair.
Xe had refused Graham’s request to relocate to Singapore for a year, citing the Sydney-based role and lack of a Singapore licence. After he returned from leave in November 2025, his manager asked IT to check his location, and the investigation traced his work laptop to a Singapore hotel. Graham said his partner had fallen ill and delayed their return; the commission found Xe did not properly explain the case against him or give him a fair chance to respond. He will receive no compensation.
- Sydney currency dealer Charles Graham won an unfair dismissal claim.
- The commission found he deliberately hid that he was working from Singapore.
- Xe had grounds to dismiss him but did not follow a fair process.
New here? Start with this
Charles Graham is a foreign exchange dealer working for Xe, an international money transfer company based in Sydney. He was dismissed from his role after his employer discovered he was working from overseas without authorisation, having previously requested and been denied permission to relocate.
The question at stake in his case is whether his dismissal was handled fairly under Australian employment law. Whilst employers have the right to enforce their workplace policies and location requirements, the law requires that they follow proper procedures when dismissing someone, including investigating the circumstances properly and giving the employee a fair chance to respond.
The case is significant because it illustrates growing workplace tensions around remote and overseas working. As more people work flexibly and away from traditional offices, disputes between employers and employees over where and how work can be done have become increasingly common, making clarity about both employee rights and employer responsibilities more important than ever.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Employers must be able to enforce legitimate business decisions or such decisions become meaningless. The employee explicitly requested to work from Singapore, was denied for valid reasons (Sydney-based role, lack of Singapore licensing), then worked from Singapore anyway whilst deliberately concealing his location—behaviour that demonstrates conscious insubordination. The Fair Work Commission itself agreed the company had valid cause for dismissal; to prioritise procedural perfection over an employer's ability to maintain workplace authority would mean employees could systematically ignore explicit directives with impunity so long as the dismissal process contained minor flaws.
The case against
Employment law requires fair procedures precisely because they protect workers from arbitrary action. Even when an employer has ultimately valid cause for dismissal, they must properly investigate circumstances, clearly explain their case, and genuinely afford the employee a fair opportunity to respond. The employee had a reasonable explanation—his partner's illness—which the company should have investigated rather than simply concluding deliberate deception. That he "won" yet received no compensation reveals a system failure: his procedural rights were violated but he has no remedy, which undermines the entire purpose of fairness requirements in employment law.