He worked from Singapore without asking, got sacked, and won. The tribunal paid him nothing

A Microsoft Teams message told a manager that a trader was working from home because a plumber was coming.

He was not at home. He was in Bali.

That detail sits at the heart of a case decided by Australia's Fair Work Commission, and reported by the Guardian on 9 October. Sydney currency trader Charles Graham was sacked after his company found out he was working from Singapore without permission. He took the company to the commission and won. He got no compensation and no job back.

How did his manager find out he was in Singapore?

Graham worked for HIFX Australia, which trades as Xe. He had been there 20 months. The rules were clear. He needed prior approval to work overseas, and he was expected in the office three days a week.

His manager asked an IT worker to track the IP address of his laptop. It showed Singapore.

Graham says he went to Singapore for a holiday. He says he could not fly back as planned because his partner developed a bacterial infection. He says he gave documents, and that urgent work and a client complaint took over once he was back at his desk. He also says nobody had told him about specific hybrid-work rules.

Photo: Bernard Spragg. NZ from Christchurch, New Zealand / Wikimedia Commons, CC0

What was the story about Bali and the plumber?

The company later learned he had also worked from Bali earlier in 2025. Graham says he worked remotely from Bali in April and May 2025, and from Townsville the year before. His manager said she had not known about any overseas work.

A Teams message showed he told her he was working from home because a plumber was due. It was sent on a day he was actually in Bali.

What did the company say?

Xe said Graham gave too little proof about his flights and his partner's illness. It said he gave no good reason for not telling his manager.

It also argued he understood the approval rules, because he had followed them before. The termination letter dated 2 December 2025 called it "a serious breach of company policy" that caused an "irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence."

He was paid four weeks' wages instead of notice.

Why did the commission say the sacking was unfair?

Commissioner Alana Matheson agreed there was a valid reason to dismiss him. But she found the process unfair. Xe had not fully put to him all the matters it relied on before it decided.

The timeline shows the problem.

Sources: Fair Work Commission decision as reported by the Guardian and People Matters.

The commission noted that the company's approach changed between 17 and 18 November. First it said it had found him working from Singapore. The next day it said he had a case to answer.

Photo: Bijay Chaurasia / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Had he asked to move to Singapore before?

Reports say Graham told the commission he had earlier asked to relocate to Singapore and was turned down. That request does not change the rule about approval, but it adds a layer to the story. A worker who wanted to live there ended up working from there anyway.

Graham also said he had worked remotely before without trouble. The company's answer was that he had followed the approval steps on other occasions, so he knew what they were.

Why did the Teams message matter?

The company's case rested on trust. A manager who is told "I am at home" and later finds a laptop in another country starts to doubt everything else.

The termination letter used that exact idea. It spoke of an "irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence." The commission accepted there was a valid reason for dismissal, and the Bali message is the kind of detail that helps explain why.

So why did he get no money?

Winning an unfair dismissal case is a two-step process. First the commission decides if the sacking was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Then it decides on a remedy.

Matheson decided that getting his old job back was not appropriate. She also gave no compensation, because Graham's own misconduct contributed to his dismissal. He had already been paid four weeks in place of notice.

In short, the commission said the company had a good reason but a bad process. It also said the worker had done something wrong. The two cancelled out.

Can your boss sack you for working from another country?

Every case is different, and this is not legal advice. What this decision shows is how a commission looked at one.

Where a company has a rule that overseas work needs approval, breaking it can count as a valid reason to dismiss. Where the company skips steps, such as telling the worker every issue before deciding, the dismissal can still be called unfair.

For anyone in a hybrid job, two things mattered here. One was the written rule on approval. The other was a single line in a Teams chat.

Our story on Netflix's reported job cuts shows how fast workplace news moves. The Gen Z protests over entry-level jobs cover the other end of the same worry.

What happens to a trader who wins and gets nothing?

Graham beat his former employer on the process. He lost on the money.

The one thing the commission could not say was that the rule did not matter. Xe wrote that he had breached company policy, and the commission agreed there was a valid reason to let him go.

So a man who typed that a plumber was due, and was found with a laptop in Singapore, walked out of the tribunal with a win on paper and an empty pocket.