Worker Wins Unfair Dismissal Case After Being Fired for Working Overseas

A Sydney-based currency dealer has won an unfair dismissal case against his employer, Xe, after being fired for serious misconduct when his work laptop was traced to Singapore. While the Fair Work Commission found there was a valid reason for his dismissal due to his deliberate failure to disclose his overseas location, the company was found to have not followed a fair process.

Charles Graham, a foreign exchange dealer, was dismissed after his manager, Abigail Plummer, contacted the company's IT department to investigate his location on November 17, 2025. The investigation revealed his laptop was logged in from an Ibis hotel in Singapore, despite the company having refused his earlier request to relocate there for a year due to his youth mobility visa. Xe stated the role was Sydney-based and the company lacked a license for operations in Singapore.

This incident followed other instances where Mr. Graham had been late for work and claimed to be waiting for a plumber at home after a mandatory three-day-a-week office attendance policy was introduced. In one such instance, he had claimed to be working from home due to a plumber fixing his toilet, but was discovered to be in Bali.

Mr. Graham argued his location was found through "illegal tracking surveillance," that he was unaware of Xe's policy on working overseas, and that he had previously worked from Bali on five occasions without issue. However, the commission noted that his prior claim of needing a plumber while in Bali demonstrated an understanding that he needed approval to work from another country.

Commissioner Alana Matheson stated that Mr. Graham's failure to disclose his location before being discovered working from Singapore was deliberate and amounted to dishonesty. Despite this, the commission ruled in favor of Mr. Graham on his unfair dismissal claim because Xe failed to provide him with a fair process. Evidence suggested the company may have predetermined his dismissal before hearing his full defense, including internal communications between managers that indicated a strategy was being formed around IT's findings.

Although Mr. Graham won his case, he will not receive any compensation. The commission determined that even with a fairer dismissal process, the outcome was unlikely to have changed due to the valid grounds for dismissal.