Working From Home – What the Westpac Decision Means for Flexible Work Requests

The Fair Work Commission has recently clarified the rights of employees to request flexible working arrangements, including working from home, in the recent legal case of Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115.

While the decision does not create an automatic right to work from home, it confirms that employers must have genuine and well-documented business reasons for refusing such requests, and must strictly follow the mandatory procedural steps under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

KEY TAKEAWAYS

There is no general right to work from home, but certain employees, including those with young children and caring responsibilities, have a statutory right to request flexible working arrangements under the Act

Employers may refuse such a request only if they:

• Discuss the request with the employee;
• Genuinely try to reach agreement;
• Consider the consequences of refusal for the employee; and
• Have reasonable business grounds for the refusal.

Failure to comply with these steps can render a refusal invalid and expose the employer to orders from the Fair Work Commission, which are available to the public.

The Commission confirmed that an employer’s internal policy (such as a hybrid work policy) or enterprise agreement cannot override the National Employment Standards (NES).

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF CHANDLER V WESTPAC

Ms Chandler, a part-time mortgage operations employee with 2 young children, requested to work from home so she could manage school drop-offs and pick-ups. She had been working successfully from home for several years. Westpac refused her request, stating that “working from home is no substitution for childcare” and that attendance at a corporate office was needed for “face-to-face engagement”.

However, the bank:

• Failed to discuss the request with Ms Chandler;
• Did not genuinely attempt to reach agreement;
• Gave no evidence it considered the consequences for her; and
• Provided only cursory written reasons for refusal

Deputy President Roberts of the Fair Work Commission found that Westpac did not comply with the mandatory requirements under the Act and that there were no reasonable business grounds for its refusal. He noted that Ms Chandler’s duties could be performed “completely remotely” and that she had consistently high-performance ratings.

The Commission ordered in favour of Ms Chandler in that her flexible working arrangement request be granted.

THE LEGAL CONTEXT

Under the Act, employees with certain circumstances, such as having children of school age, caring responsibilities, disability, or age over 55, are entitled to request flexible working arrangements.

A request can only be refused on reasonable business grounds, such as:

• Loss of productivity or efficiency;
• Negative impact on customer service; or
• Impracticality or cost in accommodating the change.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS

This decision underscores the growing scrutiny of how employers handle flexible work requests:

• Procedural compliance is critical – refusal letters must set out the business grounds, how they apply, and what alternative arrangements were considered;
• Generic reasons or reliance on policy are insufficient – business grounds must be evidence-based and specific to the employee’s role;
• The NES has primacy – work policies cannot limit employees’ statutory rights; and
• Lawful and reasonable directions to attend the office still apply – but only if grounded in genuine operational need and implemented in compliance with the Act.

NECESSARY ACTION

This decision is a timely reminder that flexible work requests are not just an HR issue – they are a legal risk area.

Employers who fail to follow the required process or cannot substantiate their reasons for refusal risk contravening the NES and facing scrutiny from the Fair Work Commission.

This case highlights that all employers should:

• Review and update flexible work policies and procedures to ensure they reflect the Act and recent case law;
• Train managers to properly handle requests, engage in genuine consultation, and document each step; and
• Seek legal advice before refusing any request to ensure the refusal is defensible on reasonable business grounds – as procedural or substantive missteps can expose the organisation to legal challenge.

It is particularly important to obtain tailored advice where flexibility requests intersect with discrimination, parental leave, or carer responsibilities, as these matters often raise overlapping statutory obligations.

Our team can assist with reviewing your policies, assessing specific requests, and ensuring your approach complies with both the Act and broader employment law obligations.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us for tailored advice.