Unfair Dismissal Win for Trader Sacked Over Singapore Remote Work
Sydney currency trader Charles Graham has won an unfair dismissal case against HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, after the Fair Work Commission ruled his December termination was procedurally unfair. Despite the favorable ruling, Graham received no financial compensation or reinstatement.
Commissioner Alana Matheson found that while the company possessed a valid underlying reason to discipline Graham, management failed to fully put its allegations to him before cutting ties. The firm had already provided four weeks of pay in lieu of notice, and Matheson noted that Graham’s own misconduct contributed to the final outcome.
IT Tracking Reveals Graham Worked from Singapore and Bali
The dispute flared late last year when Graham’s manager asked an IT worker to track the IP address on his corporate laptop. The check revealed he was logging in from Singapore. Investigators subsequently discovered he had previously worked from Bali after telling his manager he was handling recurring bathroom plumbing issues at home.
Xe maintained strict operational boundaries. The firm argued that Graham knew he needed prior approval for international remote work and was required to attend the Sydney office three times a week. Those rules formed the basis of the termination letter issued on December 2, which cited a serious breach of company policy and an irreparable breakdown of trust.
Graham Cites Partner Medical Emergency for Delayed Notification
Graham contested the company’s characterization of events before the commission. He explained that he traveled to Singapore for a holiday before his partner contracted a severe bacterial infection that prevented her from traveling, submitting documentation regarding her medical treatment.
He also argued that a flood of unread emails and client complaints upon logging on kept him from notifying his manager immediately.
A Rapid Escalation to Termination
Matheson observed that management’s tone shifted abruptly on November 17 after discovering his location. Over the next ten days, a rapid series of email exchanges and management discussions culminated directly in his dismissal.
Ultimately, the commissioner ruled that the failure to properly raise all reliance matters rendered the process unfair. Reinstatement was ruled out, leaving the trader with a moral victory and zero financial recovery.