A Sydney‑based trader was dismissed after logging into his job from a hotel in Singapore. The case highlights how remote‑work policies and hidden tracking can put a remote employee’s job at risk.

In September 2025, Charles Graham asked Xe to let him work from Singapore on a youth‑mobility visa that required him to move by 14 November. Xe refused, saying the position was based in Sydney and the company did not hold a licence to operate in Singapore.

Graham returned from leave on 17 November, logged on at 9 a.m. Sydney time and, within an hour, Xe’s IT staff ran a command on his laptop and sent GPS coordinates that showed he was at an Ibis hotel in Singapore. The discovery of his location was used as part of the reason for his dismissal on 2 December.

Fair Work Commissioner Alana Matheson found that Xe had a valid reason to dismiss Graham but that the process was unfair, so she declined to reinstate him or award compensation. She also said Graham’s failure to disclose his location was deliberate dishonesty, yet the company did not clearly name the policies he was alleged to have broken before firing him.

Xe pointed to Graham’s earlier remote work from Bali in April‑May 2025 and from Townsville in 2024, as well as a record of late arrivals after the firm required three‑day‑a‑week office attendance. However, the commissioner noted that Xe had never informed Graham that these incidents constituted policy breaches before the dismissal.

The decision shows that employees must obtain explicit approval before working from another country, and that employers need transparent, fair procedures when enforcing remote‑work rules. Hidden surveillance alone does not justify a dismissal if the process is not properly followed.