Man supposed to be on WFH in Sydney was in S'pore instead, gets fired but wins unfair dismissal case

A currency trader based in Sydney, Australia, who was allegedly on holiday in Singapore when he was supposed to be working from home, was fired by his company HIFX Australia, trading as Xe.

The man won an unfair dismissal case on Oct. 7, but was not compensated or reinstated.

The Guardian reported that the Fair Work Commission ruled Charles Graham to have been unfairly dismissed in 2025.

Fired, ruling

He had been fired on Dec. 2, 2025, The Straits Times (ST) reported, noting that he received about a month's worth of back pay.

However, Graham did not receive compensation or reinstatement, with Fair Work Commission commissioner Alana Matheson being satisfied that Graham's dismissal was unreasonable.

According to The Guardian, this was because even though there was a valid reason for the dismissal, the process was procedurally unfair.

In September 2025, Graham had asked to work in Singapore for a year.

His request was rejected, with the company explaining that it did not have a licence to operate in Singapore and his role was based in Sydney.

For weeks after that, Graham worked from home, saying he had an eye injury, according to ST.

Investigation, high-value client

Following this, he used his annual leave and went on holiday, after which he was expected back at work in November 2025.

Graham's manager, Abigail Plummer, reached out to IT on Nov. 17, 2025, where she wrote an email stating: "Our mate should be online today, first day since his holiday, so I will need your FBI skills."

An investigation was then conducted, which found that Graham was apparently in Singapore when he was supposed to be "working from home" in Sydney, ST reported.

According to The Guardian, the company told Graham "there was a case to answer regarding alleged breaches of company policy".

His written defence to the company stated that his partner supposedly fell ill with a bacterial infection while the couple were on holiday and as such, had to delay returning to Australia.

He added that he was unable to inform his manager about rescheduling his flight over a weekend since there had not been any expectation or precedent of contacting her outside business hours.

Graham further argued that when he logged on for work in Singapore, he received a complaint from a high-value client as well as numerous emails and calls which he had to deal with.

As such, he claimed this took priority over informing his manager about the flight delay. He also claimed he was not familiar with hybrid work policies.

Termination letter

The company did not accept his explanation and sent him a termination letter on Dec. 2, 2025, The Guardian reported.

The company found Graham had apparently not provided screenshots of his flight, including his name and medical evidence, in his written submissions.

That would supposedly prove that his partner could not travel, and would also explain why he did not inform his manager about being in Singapore.

According to The Guardian, the letter added that since Graham had previously followed "absence and approval processes", it showed his familiarity with them.

It also apparently demonstrated that he had made "a conscious choice not to follow" them.

The company also pointed out earlier incidents where Graham either claimed to be unwell or stuck doing chores at home when he was late for work.

ST reported that at the time, the company had introduced a compulsory three-day-a-week office attendance policy.

In one incident, Graham was reportedly in Bali, Indonesia, despite claiming he had to work from home as a plumber was going to fix the toilet.

Rationale behind ruling

According to The Guardian, Matheson reasoned that the subsequent process after the dismissal had been unfair as the company did not fully raise the matters on which it relied on in deciding that Graham should be dismissed.

This was reportedly evident in lapses in how it handled his dismissal, according to ST.

Graham's outcome could possibly have been decided before properly considering his response, based on internal messages.

Matheson ruled that it was inappropriate to reinstate him. Despite the man winning the case, he was also not awarded any compensation.

According to The Guardian, it was partly because his alleged misbehaviour contributed to the company's decision to fire him.

He was also entitled to receive four weeks in lieu of notice, which he was paid.