Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the right to request flexible work arrangements is available to employees with sufficient service who fall within certain recognised categories, such as parents of young children, carers, people with a disability, older workers, pregnant employees, or those affected by family or domestic violence. Importantly, the change to the work arrangement sought must be connected to those circumstances, not simply personal preference.

An employer can only refuse a request for a flexible work arrangement on reasonable business grounds. If an employer refuses a request, the employee can refer the dispute to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for arbitration. It is nearly 3 years since the FWC was first empowered to arbitrate disputes over rejected requests. Its decisions highlight when employers can and cannot refuse a flexible work arrangement.

When refusal fails

In Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd (2025), the FWC found there were no reasonable business grounds to refuse an employee’s request to work from home 1 additional day per fortnight to assist with caring for his infant child. The employer relied on contractual wording requiring office attendance, concerns about distraction due to childcare activities, alleged client dissatisfaction and the risk of setting a precedent.

The FWC was unpersuaded. The decision emphasised that the flexible work provisions are intended to accommodate individual circumstances and may require some departure from standard contractual arrangements. Importantly, there was no convincing evidence of reduced productivity or client impact, and concerns about precedent were dismissed given the personal nature of the request.

A similar theme emerged in Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (2025). The employee sought to work fully remotely to manage school pick-ups for her two young children. Despite the employer’s reliance on its hybrid working policy and general statements about the benefits of office attendance, the FWC found that the bank had not properly engaged with the request and had not demonstrated real business reasons for refusing it. The employee had worked remotely for years with strong performance outcomes and no evidence of adverse impact.

The FWC placed weight on the significant personal consequences for the employee if the request were refused, compared with the limited benefit to the employer of insisting on strict policy compliance.

You can find more on this case in a previous bulletin here.

When refusal succeeds

By contrast, in Hutchison v Cleanco Queensland Ltd (2025), the FWC upheld the employer’s refusal. Although the employee relied on his status as a parent of school-aged children, the FWC found that the request was driven primarily by a personal choice about where the family lived, rather than a need arising from his caring responsibilities. The employer also demonstrated clear operational difficulties and additional costs if the employee were not physically present on site.

Take a deep-dive into this case in our case law analysis here.

In Gration v Bendigo Bank (2024), the FWC rejected a request for permanent remote work where the evidence did not establish that full-time work from home was necessary to meet the employee’s caring responsibilities. The employer had shown flexibility when specific needs arose, and the FWC emphasised that flexibility must operate both ways in the employment relationship.

What can you learn from these decisions?

These decisions show the following are important when considering a request for a flexible work arrangement:

1. The requested change must address the employee’s particular circumstances. General appeals to convenience or work-life balance are unlikely to succeed.
2. Claims about caring responsibilities, productivity or client impact must be supported by relevant evidence.
3. A failure to properly consider a request, engage in discussion or provide clear reasons can significantly weaken an employer’s position.
4. Employers that rely inflexibly on universal policies or practices (e.g. we have an office-based culture) to reject requests face risks when the impact of refusal on employees is significant.

latest Health & safety bulletin

Closing the door to workplace bullying
Bullying and harassment can lead to significant penalties under safety laws, as a recent Victorian case demonstrates ...

Read more