Convenience doesn’t guarantee the right to work from home

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has confirmed that employees cannot insist on hybrid working arrangements simply because it worked for both the employer and the employee during the pandemic.

In Paul Collins v Intersystem Australia Pty Ltd (2025), an employee sought an order from the FWC allowing him to work from home 2 days per week. The employer had adopted a hybrid working model under which the employee worked from home on Wednesdays and Thursdays. However, in late 2024, the employer issued a direction that, effective 1 February 2025, all staff would be required to return to the office 5 days per week. The employer justified the decision on the need to improve customer service delivery.

Request for a flexible work arrangement

In January 2025, the employee submitted a formal request for a flexible work arrangement to continue working from home 2 days per week, citing caring responsibilities for his school-aged children and the need for work-life balance as grounds for the application. The employee shared caring responsibilities with his wife.

The employer advised the employee in writing that it would not accept the request, but would allow him to work from home 1 day per week. The employee did not accept this and brought an application to the FWC.

Flexible work arrangement disputes

The Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) allows for flexible work arrangements in a number of circumstances, such as where the employee is the parent of, or has responsibility for the care of, a child who is of school age or younger. The FWC has the power to arbitrate disputes about these arrangements.

When a dispute is referred to it, the FWC must consider whether:

the employee’s request for the flexible work arrangement was validly made; and
the employer’s refusal of the request was based on reasonable business grounds.

Arguments for and against

The employee submitted that his remote work arrangement, which had been in place for several years, did not adversely affect his productivity, availability or overall performance.

In response, the employer submitted that the application should be dismissed because the employee failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his request and the relevant circumstances prescribed by the FW Act. Additionally, the employer argued that the employee's failure to explain how his parental responsibilities were sufficiently connected to his request to work from home was fatal to his application.

What did the FWC decide?

The FWC found that there was insufficient evidence that the employee had established the requisite nexus between his stated circumstance – his responsibilities as a parent of school-aged children – and the change in working arrangements he was seeking. Rather, the employee simply had a preference to continue an existing pattern of work.

The FWC also found that the employee did not demonstrate that working from home 2 days per week was necessary to meet those responsibilities. The employee conceded that he had no specific caring duties between the core working hours of 9am and 5pm, and that he and his wife were able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility, including adjusted start and finish times.

On this basis, the FWC resolved the dispute in favour of the employer.

Excavation unearths serious safety risk
An NSW residential builder was fined $225,000 last week in relation to an earthen wall collapsing onto a worker during excavation works ...