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, experts say.
In a decision handed down on Monday, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) 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 70km 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 2.25pm.
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 FWC in early 2025, seeking to either return to her previous arrangement or be allowed to work entirely from home.

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 FWC ruling, the returning senior manager sent her an email informing her that “working from home is no substitution for child care”.

‘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.

LISTEN TO

INTERVIEW: The truth about working from home - and should we work on Friday afternoons?

INTERVIEW: The truth about working from home – and should we work on Friday afternoons?

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.
FWC 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 Thomas, 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.

‘All employers on notice’

The national secretary of the Finance Sector Union, which represented Chandler in the case, said the decision “is significant and paves the way for workers who have caring responsibilities just like Ms Chandler to secure work from home rights”.
“This decision puts all employers on notice that they will need to have genuine business reasons to refuse a flexible working arrangement request,” Julia Angrisano said in a statement provided to SBS News.
Giuseppe Carabetta is an associate professor of workplace and business law at the University of Technology Sydney. He struck a similar note, saying the case emphasised the particular onus that was on employers.
“This ruling — along with similar previous ones on the issue — sends a clear message: employers can’t rely solely on a company policy when rejecting flexible work requests,” Carabetta told SBS News.

“The commission’s decisions in this area so far show that it expects a genuine, individualised assessment that weighs the employee’s role, personal circumstances, and the broader impact of flexibility.”

Jessica Dawson-Field, an employment special counsel at Maurice Blackburn, said the ruling was significant for rebutting “the assumption that there has to be face-to-face engagement in the workplace”.
“There are some jobs that can be done remotely without any detriment on the work, the customers, colleagues. And I think in this case, the Fair Work Commission found that this was one of those roles.”
Dawson-Field said one of the main takeaways for employers was to “really engage with the process” when an employee asks for flexible work arrangements.
“There’s a number of requirements that Westpac didn’t comply with. For example, for providing a response in 21 days as required under the Fair Work Act, and they didn’t really provide any clear reasons as to why the request was refused.”

“There was also no real evidence about the reduction in productivity or efficiency or any sort of decline in customer service that could be relied on to really justify the refusal of the application to work from home.”

LISTEN TO

Is your job burning you out? Experts say better boundaries and workplace connections can help

Is your job burning you out? Experts say better boundaries and workplace connections can help

Asked if the case would make employers more wary of offering temporary work from home arrangements out of fear they could be used to lock in remote work permanently, she said:

“Every case turns on its own facts … It’s not necessarily a requirement that the employee has previously worked from home to really justify a work-from-home request.”

More key takeaways

Carabetta said previous cases had 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

– Provide detailed and specific business grounds for refusals (not generalised loss of productivity and efficiency arguments) and substantiate such claims

– Explain the detriment likely caused to the particular employee if working from home (e.g. lost opportunity to improve performance via guidance or isolation for an employee if working fully from home as a carer)
Carabetta added that the case had some important takeaways for employees making work-from-home requests, saying they:

– 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 the employee’s particular circumstance — that is, they need to establish a clear ‘nexus’ between the two. Otherwise, we have seen the commission come down on employees, or at least come up with a more balanced option in the circumstances.

In statements made after the FWC decision, Westpac said it would “consider the ruling”.
“Westpac’s workplace policy is designed to help our people deliver the best outcomes for customers, no matter where they work. It ensures meaningful collaboration within teams while providing flexibility to work from home,” a spokesperson said.
SBS News sought comment from Westpac but did not receive a response before this article was published.