The Fair Work Commission has ruled in favour of a Westpac employee’s request to work remotely on a full-time basis.
The decision of Chandler v Westpac[1] not only sets the tone for flexible working requests going forward but also highlights the importance of employers following the strict procedure under the Fair Work Act 2009 when responding to these requests.
In this Insight, we summarise the key reasons for the FWC’s decision and the takeaways for employers.
Background
Last year, Westpac introduced a “Hybrid Working Model” policy requiring employees to attend a Westpac corporate office in-person for at least two days per week.
The employee had previously relocated to Wilton, 80km south-west of Sydney, with her children attending a private school near her family home. The employee worked on a part-time basis remotely from home. After the introduction of the Hybrid Working Model, the employee was initially told she could work for two days per week from Westpac’s Bowral branch, but this decision was then reversed, and the employee was informed she instead had to work from a Westpac corporate office for at least two days per week. The closest corporate office to the employee’s home was located in Kogarah, approximately two hours from her home and the school attended by her children.
On 17 January 2025, the employee submitted a formal request for flexible working arrangements, seeking permission to work remotely on a full-time basis to enable her to attend to school pick-ups and drop-offs for her children. The request was rejected by Westpac on 18 March 2025 and the employee applied to the Fair Work Commission to resolve the dispute.
Westpac and the Finance Sector Union, who represented the employee, then exchanged alternative proposals but Westpac eventually determined that the employee had to undertake a phased return to attend a corporate office two days per week by January 2026.
Flexible Working Arrangements
Under the Fair Work Act, employees who have completed 12 months’ service with their employer are entitled to request flexible working arrangements if certain circumstances apply to the employee, including where the employee is pregnant, is a carer, has a disability or like in this case, is the parent of a child who is of school age or younger. The request must be in writing and must set out the reasons why a change in working arrangements is needed.
The employer must respond to the request in writing within 21 days and may only refuse the request if the employer has followed the strict process outlined in the Fair Work Act, which involves discussing and genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employee on a change in the employee’s working arrangements that will reasonably accommodate the employee’s circumstances, considering the consequences of refusing the request, and having “reasonable business grounds” to refuse the request. There is also a prescribed list of matters that must be addressed in the employer’s written response to a request, particularly where the request is to be refused.
Decision
Deputy President Roberts was critical of Westpac’s failure to follow the statutory process for responding to flexible working requests, including failing to genuinely try to reach agreement with the employee on a change to her working arrangements to accommodate her personal circumstances, and failing to respond within 21 days with proper written reasons for its decision.
As to the “reasonable business grounds” requirement, Westpac’s position was that the arrangement would likely result in a significant loss in efficiency and productivity or would have a significant negative impact on customer service. Westpac reiterated that its “Hybrid Working Model” policy provided a measured approach that allowed for a mixture of in-person and remote work and enabled it to effectively manage this issue amongst its large workforce.
The employee submitted that team collaboration was unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed arrangement, as face-to-face contact was not an ordinary part of her job, and her team functioned well without in-person attendance.
Deputy President Roberts noted that although the employee had conceded there were benefits that flowed from in-person attendance and face-to-face interaction, the evidence given by Westpac as to these benefits was generalised and insufficient to establish that reasonable business grounds existed to deny the request. The Deputy President also commented on the success of the employee’s prior remote work arrangement:
“… there is no question that [the employee]’s work can be performed completely remotely. She has been working remotely for a number of years and is doing so very successfully. The evidence confirms that both [the employee] and her team have performed at a very high level. Deadlines have been met or exceeded.”
Key Takeaways
The decision emphasises the importance of following the procedure under the Fair Work Act when responding to requests for flexible working arrangements. It is equally important that employers properly document the steps taken in doing so.
Further, if an employer intends to reject a request, reliance upon a generic WFH policy will likely be insufficient. Employers will be expected to assess each request having regard to the employee’s individual circumstances, as well as any specific reasons as to why in-office attendance is required to perform certain duties associated with a particular role.
Employers should also be mindful of allowing employees to work remotely in the absence of a formal policy or documented flexible work arrangement. If the arrangement works well, that could be relied upon by the employee, or a colleague, to support future flexible working requests.
If you have any questions about what this decision means for your business’ remote working arrangements, please contact a member of the Addisons’ Employment & Workplace Relations team.
1 Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115.