Worker caught secretly working overseas wins unfair dismissal

A Sydney foreign exchange dealer who was sacked for secretly working from Singapore has won his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim. The dealer had also been secretly working overseas from Bali, having told his manager that he needed to work from home because he had a “plumber coming around.” The Fair Work Commission found his dishonesty provided a valid reason for termination of employment. However, it was deemed unfair as his employer did not provide him with procedural fairness. The Commission decided that reinstatement was not appropriate and refrained from awarding any compensation.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work unfair dismissal case, Graham v HIFX Australia Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we look at a Bureau of Meteorology scientist whose sacking for secretly working from the US was upheld. 

Read more unfair dismissal: Truckie Dismissed Over $100K of Melted Ice Cream

Case summary: Graham v HIFX Australia Pty Ltd [2026] 

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW.
  
• Key employee argument: His employer’s policies did not clearly prohibit short-term overseas work. Denied procedural fairness with predetermined disciplinary process.
  
• Key employer argument: He worked from Singapore after his request to do so was refused. He concealed his location, causing a breakdown of trust.
  
• FWC ruling: Valid reason for termination of employment, but it was unreasonable due to procedural unfairness. No compensation ordered.

Requested WFH to get a plumber over, but was actually in Bali

Charles Graham started working as a full-time foreign exchange dealer for HIFX Australia (trading as Xe) in March 2024. His team was mostly based in New Zealand, including his manager. From mid-2024, Xe’s remote work policy required staff to attend the office three days per week. It also did not allow working remotely from another country without permission.

On the morning of 28 April 2025, Mr Graham messaged his manager telling her that he was “WFH today” because he had a “plumber coming around to sort out some recurring bathroom issues.” He added, “Will make it up later.” However, that day he was actually working remotely from Bali. In fact, he ended up working the rest of the week from Bali, in total five days. Mr Graham also admitted to the Fair Work Commission that he had worked from Townsville on another occasion.

Unfair dismissal NSW: Request to work from Singapore denied

On 22 September 2025, Mr Graham emailed his manager to request relocating to Singapore for up to a year. He had obtained a youth mobility visa that required him to relocate by 14 November 2025. During Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings, Mr Graham’s manager claimed that she told him the request was denied. She told him that his role was Sydney based and that Xe did not have any licences to operate in Singapore. Mr Graham, however, told the Fair Work Commission that the request was not denied.

Two days later, Mr Graham injured his eye at work. He requested and was granted the ability to work from home for a few days. Then in early October, he brought up the issue of working in Singapore again with his manager. Mr Graham argued that other staff had been allowed to work overseas, but his manager reiterated that his role was Sydney based. On 9 October 2025, Mr Graham provided a medical certificate recommending he work from home for the next three months due to his eye injury.

Unfair dismissal NSW: Laptop traced to Singapore

Mr Graham took approved annual leave from 10 to 14 November 2025 and flew to Singapore with his partner a few days prior. His return flight was set for 16 November 2025, but he rebooked it to 20 November 2025 after his partner became unwell. 

On the morning of Monday 17 November 2025, Mr Graham’s first day back from leave, his manager sent IT a message saying, “our mate should be online today…so I will need your FBI skills.” IT retrieved the laptop’s GPS coordinates, revealing Mr Graham’s laptop was in Singapore. He was staying at an Ibis hotel in the country.

When HR emailed Mr Graham to confirm his location, he said that he had not had time to seek approval and asked to work remotely until his return. Mr Graham was fired with payment in lieu of notice on 2 December 2025. Xe cited the fact that he worked overseas without approval, “concealed” his location and did not sufficiently explain his actions. 

Read more unfair dismissal: Employer Forced to Pay $168K for Dismissal with Zero Procedural Fairness

Why did Mr Graham argue his dismissal was unfair?

In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Graham argued:

• No Xe policy specifically prohibited overseas work, and no relevant policy was brought to his attention.
  
• He had worked remotely before, including overseas, without any reprimand.
  
• His request to work from Singapore was never refused in writing.
  
• His location was determined by illegal tracking surveillance.
  
• His termination of employment was predetermined, and the process was a formality.
  
• Dismissal was disproportionate given no client impact and his unblemished disciplinary history.

In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Xe argued that its employee handbook required an employee’s home environment to be in the same country as the workplace, unless they had written approval. The company claimed that Mr Graham did not get approval to work in Singapore and knew it was required to do so. Xe argued that the fact he had secretly worked overseas irreparably broke the trust of the employment relationship. 

Why did the Fair Work Commission find the dismissal unfair?

Mr Graham’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was decided by the Fair Work Commission in October 2026. It found there was a valid reason for his termination of employment. However, it was ultimately ruled unjustified as the process was procedurally unfair. The Commission’s decision was based on the following findings:

• There was a valid reason for termination as Mr Graham worked in Singapore without approval, knowing it was required. His failure to disclose his location was “deliberate and amounted to dishonesty.”
  
• He had previously worked from Bali under the pretext of being home so a plumber could visit.
  
• Xe’s employee handbook requirement was reasonable and lawful. Approval to work from home in Australia was not approval to work from overseas.
  
• Mr Graham was not told before the decision that dishonesty was a reason for termination of employment, so he had no opportunity to respond to it.
  
• During the dismissal process, Xe did not identify the specific policies it relied on.
  
• Internal messages indicated the outcome was already settled, including “Try and get him to admit it” and “just need to sort strategy once IT confirm.”

The Commission concluded that reinstatement was inappropriate, and Mr Graham did not seek it. On compensation, the Commission found a fair process would have extended his employment by about four weeks, for which he would have been paid $5,384.62. Xe had already paid Mr Graham $5,384.61 in lieu of notice. With a difference of one cent, the Commission declined to order compensation.

Read more: Ashurst Lawyer Slams Employer’s “Egregious Contempt”

Bureau of Meteorology scientist fired for secretly working from the US

In Diandong Ren v The Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Bureau of Meteorology [2023], a scientist stayed in the United States after his leave ended and continued working there without approval. The Fair Work Commission found he had told his manager he was back in Australia when he was not. Travel records from the Department of Home Affairs contradicted his account, and the Commission found his termination of employment justified.

Case summary: Diandong Ren v The Commonwealth of Australia [2023] 

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission Victoria.
  
• Key employee argument: He had permission to work remotely, including overseas. His delayed return was caused by a positive Covid test.
  
• Key employer argument: He accessed its network from overseas and was absent without approval, made a false statement and did not comply with a direction.
  
• Fair Work ruling: Justified dismissal.

Unfair dismissal VIC: Scientist did not return to work after approved leave

Diandong Ren started as a research scientist in the Bureau of Meteorology’s Melbourne office in September 2018. He took approved leave from 23 August to 16 September 2022 and was due back on 19 September 2022. Nine days later, his supervisor complained that Mr Ren had not returned to the office and was unresponsive. Network logs showed he had been logging in from an IP address in Austin, Texas. Mr Ren attributed this to a personal computer “left running python and unix scripts.”

The Bureau directed Mr Ren to provide evidence of his travel dates, including by requesting records from the Department of Home Affairs. He did not do so, and the Bureau issued him a notice of a possible breach of the APS Code of Conduct. When Mr Ren received the draft investigation report in December 2022, he said he “truly did not recall” his travel details. Home Affairs records showed he returned to Australia on 6 October 2022.

Unfair dismissal VIC: Further allegations emerged

Home Affairs records also showed that Mr Ren’s passport was used to leave Australia on 20 January 2023 and return on 10 March 2023. Mr Ren had requested extended leave from 7 February 2023 to visit the US, which the Bureau had not approved. He denied he left the country and claimed his passport had been stolen.

Mr Ren faced termination of employment on 22 June 2023. The Bureau cited his “deliberate refusal” to accept its rules on remote work and IT access. He was paid four weeks in lieu of notice.

Why did Mr Ren argue his dismissal was unjustified?

In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Ren argued:

• Previous managers and IT staff had permitted remote work, including from overseas, and IT had installed software to allow it.
  
• His delayed return was caused by a positive Covid test in Doha and Covid-like symptoms.
  
• The emails relied on by the Bureau, which showed that his request to work from overseas had been refused, were fabrications. Mr Ren claimed his manager had a grudge against him. 
• His passport had been stolen and used by someone else.

Why did Fair Work find the dismissal was fair?

Mr Ren’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was decided by the Fair Work Commission in December 2023. It ruled that he had faced justified termination of employment for the following reasons:

• Mr Ren knew that he needed approval to work overseas. He had been told in November 2021 that his request was not approved.
  
• Home Affairs records and Mr Ren’s own concessions confirmed he was out of the country from 20 to 28 September 2022.
  
• He accessed the Bureau’s IT network from overseas without approval. The Commission accepted he “genuinely” believed he had implicit permission. However, “it is not for him to decide when and from where he can access the employer’s IT networks.”
  
• The Commission was “convinced” the IT security risk “alone would have warranted” decisive action.
  
• There was no evidence the emails were fabricated, nor any to support his claims of passport theft.

Unfair dismissal FAQs

Can I be fired for working overseas without my employer’s approval?

Potentially, yes. Employers can set reasonable and lawful rules about where work is performed and which systems may be accessed from where. A deliberate breach can be a valid reason for termination of employment.

In Diandong Ren v The Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Bureau of Meteorology [2023], a scientist was fired for working from the US without getting approval and misleading his boss. The Fair Work Commission found the scientist had breached his employer’s policies, accepting that he knew approval was required. His Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was therefore thrown out.

Can a dismissal be unfair even if the employer had a valid reason?

Yes. A valid reason is only one factor. The employer must also ensure the employee is provided with procedural fairness. This includes notifying the employee of the reason for their potential termination of employment, and giving them a chance to respond to it, prior to a decision being made.

In Graham v HIFX Australia Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission found the worker’s dishonesty in not disclosing that he was working from Singapore was a valid reason for his sacking. However, his employer did not notify him of that reason prior to making the decision to let him go, and therefore did not give him a chance to respond to it. Due to these procedural deficiencies, the worker won his Fair Work unfair dismissal case despite the valid reason for termination of employment. 

Think you’ve been unfairly dismissed? 

As you read in this article, if your employer does not afford you procedural fairness when terminating you, it could render your sacking unfair. We at A Whole New Approach can help you understand if you have the ability to challenge your sacking with the Fair Work Commission.

Strict deadlines apply for lodging Fair Work unfair dismissal claims, so you need to act quickly. Call us any day of the week on 1800 333 666 for your free and private first consultation.