A Fair Work Commission ruling on a Westpac employee’s work from home request signals employers must provide genuine, individualised assessments when refusing flexibility
What’s happening: The Fair Work Commission ruled that Westpac Bank failed to provide reasonable business grounds when refusing part-time employee Karlene Chandler’s request to work from home five days a week. The ruling found Chandler’s work could be performed completely remotely and that she had been doing so successfully for years.
Why this matters: The decision reinforces employers’ obligations to genuinely engage with flexible work requests and provide detailed, individualised justifications for refusals. Workplace law experts say the case puts all Australian employers on notice that company policy alone cannot justify denying flexible arrangements.
The ruling granting a Westpac employee the right to work from home five days a week sends a clear message to all Australian employers dealing with such requests, according to workplace law experts.
In a decision handed down on Monday, the Fair Work Commission found the bank had not provided a reasonable business case to refuse part-time employee Karlene Chandler’s request.
Chandler, who several years ago moved to a regional town roughly 70 kilometres from the nearest Westpac corporate office, argued she needed flexibility to care for and handle school pick-ups and drop-offs for her two six-year-old children.
She works five days a week, usually from 8am to 2pm, while her children’s school hours are between 7.40am and 2.25am.
An acting senior manager had previously given her approval to work two days a week from a Westpac branch closer to her home, but that decision was reversed when the regular holder of that position returned from leave.
Chandler, who has been working for Westpac since 2002, took the matter to the Fair Work Commission in early 2025, seeking to either return to her previous arrangement or be allowed to work entirely from home.
Reasonable business grounds
Chandler’s case rested on provisions in the Fair Work Act that give someone employed continuously for over 12 months the right to request flexible arrangements in circumstances such as pregnancy, disability and parenting.
Under the act, an employer is required to try to reach an agreement to accommodate the request, and it must demonstrate reasonable business grounds for refusing.
These include an overbearing financial cost, a significant loss in productivity or efficiency, and a lack of capacity to accommodate the request.
Among other arguments, Westpac said it would be unfair to grant Chandler flexibility based on her personal choices, such as the location of their home or the school her children attended.
It also said Chandler’s partner was capable of playing a larger role in the care of the children and that the family was in a financial position to pay for child care.
According to the Fair Work Commission ruling, the returning senior manager sent her an email informing her that “working from home is no substitution for child care”.
Among other things, Westpac argued that its teams collaborated much more effectively if there was a certain level of office attendance and face-to-face interaction, but these were not found to constitute reasonable business grounds.
Fair Work Commission deputy president Thomas Roberts ruled that there was “no question that Ms Chandler’s work can be performed completely remotely”.
“She has been working remotely for a number of years and doing so very successfully,” wrote Roberts, who in his ruling noted that Chandler had been allowed to work from home full-time both before and after taking maternity leave in 2019.
Clear message for employers
Stephen Roebuck, associate director of consultancy at Peninsula Australia, said the case does not suggest that remote work should be the default, and employers can still prioritise office-based work.
“Overall, the case does not suggest that remote work should be the default, employers can still prioritise office-based work. However, the key is to tailor decisions to individual situations and document reasoning. Getting it wrong can land an employer in hot water including tarnishing of reputation, loss of goodwill and importantly, it may affect the retention and attraction of talent. Ultimately the employer knows their business best,” Roebuck said.
“Employers should also consider the employees individual circumstances. This also means avoiding generic justifications for refusal of flexible work requests. Blanket statements and such as ‘face to face interactions are better for collaboration and productivity’ without further evidence, data or statistics will not be sufficient to establish there were reasonable business grounds for the refusal. Best practice would include have examples of how, for example, beneficial office-based work is to the team and business.”
Technical requirements matter
The decision reinforces the importance of genuine consultation and detailed justification when employers respond to flexible work requests, according to Roebuck.
“The decision reinforces the importance of genuine consultation and detailed justification when employers respond to flexible work requests. It also highlights the importance of following the procedure detailed under s 65A of the Act,” he said.
Workplace experts note that previous Fair Work Commission cases have shown that, in responding to an employee’s flexible work request, employers must ensure systems and processes are in place regarding the technical requirements of their obligations.
Employers must also provide detailed and specific business grounds for refusals, not generalised loss of productivity and efficiency arguments, and substantiate such claims. This includes explaining the detriment likely caused to the particular employee if working from home, such as lost opportunity to improve performance via guidance or isolation for an employee if working fully from home as a carer.
Engaging with the process
The case also highlights key considerations for employees making work from home requests. Employees must be clear on the change they are seeking, including for what period, offer reasons for the change, and explain how the proposed changes relate to their particular circumstance.
Previous cases have shown that employees need to establish a clear nexus between their request and their circumstances, otherwise the Fair Work Commission may come down on employees or come up with a more balanced option.
Victoria’s proposed legislation to make working from home a legal right for eligible employees has sparked debate across Australia, with over 18,000 Victorians responding to the government’s consultation survey. The proposed Victorian law would establish a minimum threshold where employees who can reasonably perform their duties remotely would be entitled to work from home at least two days per week.
Keep up to date with our stories on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
