The Fair Work Commission has again underscored the importance of properly handling flexible work requests under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA).
A recent decision involving a well known banking institution, Westpac, has reinforced that employers must not only have sound business reasons for refusal, but must also follow the statutory process carefully.
Together with the Full Bench’s decision in Opal Paper Australia, this case highlights the growing scrutiny of employer compliance in the flexible work space.
Background
The case involved a long-standing Westpac employee, Ms Chandler, who had worked in the bank since 2002, most recently within its mortgage operations team. She had worked remotely in different capacities since 2017.
The employee’s current role was primarily computer-based, and her team was spread across multiple sites including Kogarah and Parramatta, in Sydney, NSW, and in Tasmania.
The employee sought to work remotely from home so she could manage school drop-offs and pick-ups for her two six-year-old children. Since early 2025, her partner has worked irregular hours and locations, limiting his ability to assist with caring responsibilities.
Westpac operates under a “Hybrid Working Model,” which requires employees to attend a corporate office two days per week. However, given her family responsibilities and the significant travel time (up to two hours to reach either Sydney office), the employee requested under FWA section 65 to work from home full-time.
Westpac refused the request two months later, without providing written reasons. The employee suggested an alternative of working from a local branch two days a week and this was also rejected. Discussions between the parties continued for several months, but no agreement was reached.
Westpac ultimately maintained that the employee should undertake a gradual return to working two days per week in a corporate office.
Ms Chandler lodged an application to deal with the flexible work arrangements request in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). Ms Chandler applied for the FWC to deal with her request and Westpac’s refusal of her request, and sought an Order that her flexible work arrangements request be granted.
The Deputy President’s Considerations
- Response to the Flexible Working Request
The FWA sets out the obligations of an employer on receipt of a request.
FWC’s Deputy President Roberts heard and determined the matter. The Deputy President found that Westpac failed to comply with several mandatory steps in responding to the flexible work arrangements request including:
- not discussing the request with Ms Chandler or genuinely attempting to reach an agreement;
- failing to respond within 21 days as required;
- not providing its refusal in writing or setting out reasons and reasonable business grounds; and
- not considering the consequences of refusal on the employee.
The Deputy President emphasised that section 65A(3) contains cumulative requirements. This means that employers must satisfy all procedural and substantive obligations before refusing a request. These obligations are not mere technicalities: non-compliance can be a key factor in how the FWC resolves a dispute under section 65C.
2. Reasonable Business Grounds
Westpac argued that approving the arrangement would cause “a significant loss of efficiency and productivity” and negatively impact customer service. Westpac relied heavily on its hybrid working policy which stated in-person collaboration was critical.
However, the FWC found this reliance was not supported by evidence. Ms Chandler had worked remotely for several years with consistently strong performance, and the team’s dispersed structure already limited face-to-face collaboration.
Moreover, the policy itself contemplated attendance at a branch or local office to meet hybrid work expectations, an option Westpac had rejected without clear justification. As a result, the Deputy President was not satisfied that reasonable business grounds existed to refuse the request.
3. Fairness Between the Parties
Westpac submitted that it would be unfair to adjust its policies to accommodate the employee’s “personal choices” regarding where she lived and where her children attended school. The Deputy President disagreed, noting that Westpac had permitted remote working arrangements for a long period and that refusal would cause serious prejudice to Ms Chandler’s ability to balance work and caring responsibilities.
4. Interaction with the Enterprise Agreement
Westpac argued that granting the request would be inconsistent with its Enterprise Agreement, which defines “hybrid workers” and “home-based workers.” The bank maintained that employees under the Enterprise Agreement must be available to attend an office as required.
The Deputy President rejected this argument. He found that the Enterprise Agreement’s provisions operate separately from the statutory right to request flexible work under the FWA. The Enterprise Agreement sets out internal processes for hybrid or home-based arrangements, but these do not override or limit an employee’s ability to make a flexible work arrangements request under the FWA.
Accordingly, it was held that an order under FWA section 65C would not be inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement.
The Broader Context: Paper Australia and the Emerging Framework
Following the hearing, the Full Bench handed down its decision in Opal Paper Australia, which clarified the interaction between enterprise agreements and flexible work provisions under the FWA. In that case, the FWC confirmed that mere inconsistency with an Enterprise Agreement is not a reasonable business ground for refusal. Employers must demonstrate that there is some practical operational impact justifying refusal.
Together, Westpac and Opal Paper Australia demonstrate that employers must carefully consider how statutory rights coexist with terms of an enterprise agreement and policy. Mere reference to an agreement or policy will not be enough to establish reasonable business grounds.
By contrast, Terry Hutchinson v Cleanco Queensland is an example where the employer was able to demonstrate reasonable business grounds for refusing a remote work request including additional costs, staff impacts and health and safety considerations.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This decision reinforces that the process matters as much as the outcome when handling flexible work requests. Employers should:
- Engage early and genuinely
Discuss the request with the employee and explore alternatives before refusing. - Respond within 21 days
Failure to meet statutory timeframes can weigh heavily against an employer. - Provide detailed written reasons
Set out the specific “reasonable business grounds” relied upon and consider the employee’s circumstances. - Be consistent with policy and evidence
Internal policies are not a substitute for evidence-based reasoning. - Understand that enterprise agreements don’t displace statutory rights
Enterprise-level hybrid arrangements and the Fair Work Act process are distinct and operate concurrently.
Ultimately, these recent decisions serve as a reminder that each case will turn on its on facts and operational circumstances. Employers who approach flexible work requests with transparency and in accordance with the procedural requirements set out above are more likely to resolve disputes at a workplace level and foster trust and engagement across their workforce.
Final Thoughts
The Westpac case reinforces that employers must follow the Fair Work Act’s process and provide evidence-based reasons when refusing flexible work requests. Policies and enterprise agreements alone aren’t enough.
If you’re unsure how to handle these requests, IRiQ Law can help. From reviewing requests to aligning your policies, contact us today to ensure your approach is fair, compliant, and legally sound.
Latest News
Posted in News