FWC rejects productivity argument for denying work from home arrangement

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a dispute between a bank employee and her employer over a request to work from home that was rejected for reasons including potential loss of productivity.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), an employer may refuse a request for a flexible work arrangement, such as to work from home, on reasonable business grounds. Reasonable business grounds include that the requested arrangements are likely to result in a significant loss in efficiency and productivity, or are likely to have a significant negative impact on customer service.

Work from home request

In this case, Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (2025), the employee, who had worked for the employer in various teams for a long period, worked part-time hours, usually from 8am to 2pm, spread over 5 days. The employee requested a flexible work arrangement to enable her to work from her home to meet her caring responsibilities. The employee was required to care for her two 6-year-old children, and do school pick-up and drop-off, after her partner's work arrangements changed and he could no longer assist. The employee’s home, to which she and her partner had moved in 2022, was located about 80 kilometres from the worksite. Her children attended a private school that was approximately 25 to 30 minutes away, and in the opposite direction to the closest work office.

Employer’s response

The employer would only permit a phased return to 2 days a week at the office. The employer maintained this was a measured approach that provided for a mixture of in-person and remote work, and enabled it to effectively manage this issue among its very large workforce.

The employer argued that:

there were important benefits associated with the proposed minimum periods of corporate office attendance, including fostering collaboration in the immediate team and meaningful engagement with stakeholders and other people across the broader business;
a physical presence in the office assisted centralised operational processes, such as document processing and more effective team communication;
team ‘huddles’ and activities, training sessions and the use of ‘call boards’ at the corporate premises, which convey key messages to staff, are not accessible to employees working from home; and
the ability of teams to work effectively with each other was much greater if there was office attendance and face-to-face interaction.

Employee’s response

The employee argued:

access to on-site facilities was not critical to her essential responsibilities;
team collaboration was unlikely to be adversely affected in circumstances where the team is constructed in such a way that face-to-face contact was not an ordinary part of the job;
her team was a remote and flexible team that clearly functioned well without the need for ongoing in-person attendance; and
team ‘huddles’ can be and are conducted by Microsoft Teams, and training sessions are available online.

FWC decision

The FWC ruled that any supposed losses or negative impact were not significant, and there was no question the employee’s work could be performed completely remotely. She had been working remotely for a number of years and doing so very successfully, with both the employee and her team performing at a very high level. A loss of productivity or efficiency, or a negative impact on customer service, had not materialised as a consequence of the existing remote working arrangements, and it was unlikely that a continuation of those arrangements would generate those adverse results.

The employer argued that granting the employee’s request would be unfair, as it would excuse her from requirements applicable to all other staff without reasonable business justification and could undermine compliance by other employees in similar situations. The employer contended that the situation arose from the employee’s personal choices, such as her children’s schooling location and decision to relocate, and that her partner could assume more caregiving responsibilities, citing the family’s improved finances, which would enable the employee to meet childcare costs without altering workplace policies. The employee countered that the employer would suffer minimal detriment given her team’s predominantly online operations, while refusal would cause significant financial and personal hardship.

The FWC accepted that the employee’s circumstances partly reflected personal choices but found that her partner’s varied work commitments limited his capacity to assist, and that her team functioned effectively remotely. Balancing all factors, it concluded that the fairness considerations favoured granting the employee’s request.

Do you have employees working from home?

When managing requests to work from home and managing home-based employees, you have legal obligations with which you must comply. Find out what they are and how to meet them in the new Employment Law Handbook chapter, Working from home.

Residential builder faces court over contractor's brush with a steel frame
A small Victorian residential building company was fined $17,000 and ordered to pay costs in relation to an incident in which a contractor was struck by a collapsing steel frame, causing him to fall more than 3 metres ...