A recent order by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) requiring a major bank to approve a staff member’s request to work from home may set a precedent for how flexible working arrangements are handled in Australia. In this breakdown, we explore the decision and what it means for employees navigating similar challenges. 

Background: A request for flexibility to work from home denied 

A long-serving member of the bank’s mortgage operations team and mother of two, requested a flexible working arrangement in January 2025. She asked to work from her home or, alternatively, from a nearby branch two days per week, rather than commuting to the corporate office one hour away. 

Her request was based on her caregiving responsibilities and her proven ability to perform her duties remotely.  

The employer refused both options, prompting the employee to escalate the matter to the Fair Work Commission. 

The Fair Work Commission’s findings 

Deputy President Thomas Roberts rejected the employer’s argument that there was a “genuine and reasonable business need” for the employee to attend the corporate office. He found that the employer’s reasons were “cursory at best” and that the company failed to meet several mandatory requirements under the Fair Work Act. 

Key failures included: 

• Not responding to the request within the required 21-day timeframe. 
• Providing vague and insufficient reasons for refusal. 
• Failing to engage in genuine discussions or attempts to reach a compromise. 
• Not considering the consequences of refusal on the employee. 

The Deputy President noted that the employer only began discussing potential compromises after the matter was escalated, which contradicted the Fair Work Act’s requirement for prior consultation. 

A lack of evidence for refusal on reasonable business grounds  

In their defence, the employer leaned heavily on its internal policy and enterprise agreement, arguing that a mix of in-person and remote work was necessary to manage its workforce. It cited benefits of office attendance, such as team “huddles,” training sessions, and stakeholder engagement. 

However, the employee demonstrated that her team was structured in a way that did not require face-to-face interaction. Many activities, including huddles and training, were already conducted via Microsoft Teams or available online. She had successfully worked remotely for years, consistently meeting or exceeding performance expectations. 

The Deputy President concluded that the employer’s evidence was too generalised and did not establish reasonable business grounds for refusal. He stated: 

“A loss of productivity or efficiency or a negative impact on customer service has not materialised as a consequence of the existing remote working arrangements. It is unlikely in my view that a continuation of those arrangements would generate those sorts of adverse results.” 

 Fairness and the enterprise agreement 

The employer argued that granting the request would be unfair, as it would exempt the worker from requirements that apply to other employees. It also claimed the situation arose from her personal choices. 

The Commission disagreed, finding that the impact on the worker and her family outweighed any minimal benefit the employer might gain from in-office attendance. The Deputy President also addressed the bank’s claim that the request conflicted with its enterprise agreement, specifically clauses 19 and 20, which outlines hybrid work expectations and allows for flexible working arrangements in line with national employment standards. On that basis, the Deputy President found that there was no inconsistency between the agreement and the order sought. 

The employer was ordered to grant the request for flexible working arrangements 

What this means for employees and employers 

This case serves as a reminder that the legislative requirements surrounding flexible working arrangements have changed over the past few years. Employers must ensure they consider the following: 

Employers must comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Fair Work Act when responding to flexible working arrangement requests.  

Procedural and substantive requirements include: 

• Providing a written response within 21 days. 
• Engaging in genuine discussions with the employee. 
• Attempting to reach an agreement before issuing a refusal. 
• Considering the personal impact of a refusal on the employee.  

Failure to meet these procedural steps can undermine the legitimacy of the refusal and expose the employer to legal scrutiny. 

Internal policies and generalised claims are not sufficient to justify refusal. 

While company policies may outline preferred working arrangements, they do not override the legal standards set by the Fair Work Act. Employers must provide specific, evidence-based reasons for refusing a request. General statements about collaboration, productivity, or customer service are not enough – especially if the employee can demonstrate that their role can be effectively performed remotely. 

Employees are entitled to clear, timely, and detailed responses. 

A vague or delayed response to a flexible work request can be considered non-compliant. Employees have the right to understand: 

• Whether their request has been accepted or refused. 
• The reasons for any refusal, including the business grounds relied upon. 
• Any alternative arrangements proposed. Transparency and timeliness are essential to maintaining trust and legal compliance. 

 Fairness and individual circumstances must be considered. 

Employers must assess each request on its own merits, taking into account the employee’s personal situation – such as caregiving responsibilities, health needs, or geographic constraints. A blanket approach that treats all employees identically may be seen as unfair, especially if the requested arrangement does not negatively impact business operations. The Fair Work Commission will weigh the balance of fairness between the employer’s operational needs and the employee’s circumstances. 

While flexible work is not automatically guaranteed, this decision reinforces that employees have legal rights to request it – and that employers must take those requests seriously. 

If you’re looking to enable remote work in your business, it’s important to have the right policy in place. We’ve developed a Remote and Hybrid Work Policy Template, setting out key expectations, conditions and risks.

Need support navigating flexible work requests?

If your business is facing a similar situation or wants to better understand its obligations under the Fair Work Act, Business Chamber Queensland is here to help. 

We offer: 

• Expert Workplace Relations advice – Get guidance on responding to flexible working arrangement requests in compliance with legislation. 
• Policy review and development – Ensure your internal policies align with national employment standards and enterprise agreements. 
• Training and resources – Access workshops, webinars, and toolkits to support managers and HR professionals. 
• Dispute resolution support – Receive assistance in managing workplace disputes and navigating Fair Work Commission processes. 
• Legal and industrial relations updates – Stay informed on the latest decisions, legislative changes, and best practices. 

For tailored advice or to speak with a workplace relations expert, contact our Workplace Advisory team today. 

Case: Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (C2025/5698)