Australian man claims to be working from home, gets fired after company tracks laptop to Singapore hotel

A Sydney-based currency trader was fired after his employer discovered that he was working from Singapore while claiming to be working from home in Australia. The company tracked his laptop to a hotel in Singapore after he failed to return to work following a holiday.The employee did not get his job back or receive additional compensation. (Unsplash/Respresentational image)Charles Graham had worked for HIFX Australia, which operates as currency exchange company Xe, for 20 months when the company discovered that he was overseas, according to a report by The Independent.Graham had previously asked to relocate to Singapore for a year, but his request was rejected in September 2025. He reportedly had a youth mobility visa that he needed to use by mid-November 2025, but the company said that his job was based in Sydney and it did not have a licence to operate in Singapore.After his relocation request was denied, Graham submitted a medical certificate claiming that an eye injury required him to work from home for three months. He then took annual leave and travelled to Singapore, as per the outlet.Graham was expected to return to work on November 17, but his manager discovered that he had not returned as scheduled. “Our mate should be online today, first day since his holiday, so I will need your FBI skills,” his manager wrote in an email to an IT employee, according to a report by The Straits Times.The company’s checks eventually traced Graham’s laptop to an Ibis hotel in Singapore.Trader says partner’s illness delayed his returnGraham told the company that he had intended to return to Australia but had to postpone his flight because his partner developed a bacterial infection and required medical treatment. He said that the change in plans happened over the weekend and that he did not think to contact his manager outside business hours.By the time he logged in from Singapore, Graham claimed he was overwhelmed by hundreds of unread emails, incoming calls and a complaint from a high-value client, so telling his manager that he was still overseas had taken a back seat.The company rejected his explanation. In a termination letter issued in December 2025, the company said that Graham had failed to provide flight records showing that he intended to return to Australia or medical evidence supporting his account of his partner’s illness.“Your conduct represents a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence,” the letter stated.(Also Read: She is hitchhiking from Portugal to Australia with a daily budget of less than ₹500)Employee challenges dismissalGraham challenged his dismissal before Australia’s Fair Work Commission, which handles workplace disputes. He argued that the company had discovered his whereabouts through “illegal tracking surveillance” and claimed that he had previously worked from Bali several times in April and May 2025 without being reprimanded.His manager, however, told the commission that she had not known he was working overseas during those earlier periods.Evidence submitted by the company included a Microsoft Teams message in which Graham had asked to work from home, allegedly to be present for a plumber dealing with recurring bathroom problems. The company said that at the time, he was actually in Bali.(Also Read: 'Australians are laid-back': Indian man compares public holidays in Australia and India, internet reacts)What did the commission say?Commissioner Alana Matheson found that concealing his location in Bali demonstrated that Graham understood the company’s policy requiring permission to work from another country. She concluded that his failure to disclose his location before being discovered in Singapore “was deliberate and amounted to dishonesty”.The commission also questioned how the firm handled the dismissal, saying that it had not explained its reason for firing Graham, denying him a fair opportunity to respond. It also raised concerns that internal communications suggested the company had already decided on the outcome before discussions with him took place.The dismissal process was ruled unfair last week, but the commission acknowledged that the firm had a valid reason to fire him.Graham, on the other hand, was not reinstated and received no additional compensation, as he had already been paid four weeks’ salary in lieu of notice.