Westpac’s recent loss at the Fair Work Commission over a staff member’s request to work from home permanently serves as a stark warning to employers. Experts caution that organizations must be prepared to justify why certain employees are required to return to the office.
This development follows a successful challenge by a Westpac worker, who had moved hours away to accommodate her children’s schooling needs. The Fair Work Commission ruled in favor of the employee, highlighting the necessity for employers to provide “reasonable business grounds” when denying flexible work arrangements.
Background and Key Details
Karlene Chandler, a long-term employee of Westpac, relocated with her family to Wilton, approximately 80 kilometers southwest of Sydney’s CBD, in 2021. The move was intended to be closer to the private school attended by her two six-year-old children. Chandler sought to maintain her work-from-home arrangement to manage school drop-offs, noting the significant travel time to Westpac offices in Kogarah or Parramatta.
Initially granted flexible work conditions, Chandler faced a policy reversal in January when Westpac mandated office attendance for at least two days per week. In response, she formally requested flexible working arrangements under section 65 of the Fair Work Act, which supports employees with life or carer responsibilities, including parents of school-aged children.
Commission’s Decision and Implications
The Fair Work Commission’s deputy president, Thomas Roberts, acknowledged Chandler’s circumstances arose from personal choices. However, he emphasized that Westpac failed to provide adequate business reasons for denying her request. The bank’s inability to respond in writing within the required 21 days further influenced the decision.
“This decision puts all employers on notice that they will need genuine business reasons to refuse a flexible working request,” said Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano.
Roberts also highlighted Chandler’s successful remote work history, noting her team’s high performance under such conditions. The ruling underscores the importance of employers adhering to legal obligations and considering individual circumstances when evaluating flexible work requests.
Reactions and Industry Impact
Westpac, responding to the ruling, stated it would review the decision but maintained that its current policy of 2-3 days of office attendance balances employee and customer needs. Meanwhile, Angrisano stressed that working from home “is a right, not a privilege,” advocating for more accommodating policies for workers with caring responsibilities.
The ruling arrives amid broader discussions on flexible work policies. In August, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan announced plans to allow public and private sector workers to work from home at least two days a week. This aligns with growing demands for flexible arrangements post-pandemic.
Expert Opinions and Future Considerations
Sam Nottle, principal lawyer at Jewell Hancock employment lawyers, emphasized the legal requirement for employers to respond to flexible work requests within 21 days and to substantiate any refusals. He noted that a wide array of employees, particularly parents of school-age children, are eligible to request flexible arrangements under the Fair Work Act.
“Employers need to consider individual circumstances,” Nottle stated. “If an employee has worked very well from home in the past, you do have to grapple with and address the business grounds on which you’re refusing the request.”
Professor Anya Johnson, head of discipline in work and organizational studies at the University of Sydney’s business school, echoed these sentiments, urging companies to adapt to the evolving workplace landscape.
The Westpac decision may set a precedent for future cases, reinforcing the necessity for transparent and justified employer policies regarding flexible work. As the debate continues, businesses are encouraged to reassess their strategies to accommodate employee needs while maintaining operational efficiency.
