BOOK A NO-OBLIGATION APPOINTMENT

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Personal preference not a reason for work from home

by | Aug 11, 2025 | Workplace Protections

In a recent decision the Fair Work Commission dismissed an application by technical support specialist for an order permitting him to work from home 2 days a week.

The Facts

The employer was a global software company that operated an online record system for healthcare providers.

The employee commenced full-time employment in 2005 and was part of a team that provided technical support to the front-line support team in complex issues.

After the COVID pandemic the employer adopted a hybrid working model allowing employees to work remotely two days per week.  Under this arrangement the employee was working from home on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

On 23 January 2025 the employee requested a flexible working arrangement to continue working from home 2 days per week, citing responsibility for his children and the need for work-life balance.

The employee was the parent of two school-aged children aged 8 and 10, and shared caring responsibilities with his wife.

By letter dated 14 February 2025 the employer notified the request could not be accommodated but offered an alternative flexibility of 1 day per week.

The employee did not accept the proposal.  Further discussions did not resolve the dispute and the employee applied to the Fair Work Commission for flexible work orders.

In the application he submitted that:

  1. When working from home he had met all performance expectations.
  2. Working from home did not adversely affect his productivity, availability, or performance.
  3. Working 5 days a week in the office was not essential for better customer service.
  4. The employer had failed to give adequate individual consideration to his circumstances.
  5. Employees in another team (the Development team) were permitted to work remotely, and he should be given the same flexibility.

The employer’s submissions included that:

  1. Employees do not have an automatic right to the flexibility they request.
  2. The employee had not identified why his status as parent of school-aged children required the specific flexibility he sought.
  3. In particular he had not given information about any caring duties or other responsibilities that he would miss if required to work from the office.
  4. It had given sound business reasons for not approving his request including the exchange of information, supporting mentoring and collaboration, and benefiting the organisation’s culture.
  5. A user survey had identified a 28% decline in customer satisfaction, prompting management to implement improvement measures.
  6. He had not explained why the flexibility that was offered to him was unsuitable for his caring arrangements and his request appeared to be based on convenience rather than genuine necessity.
  7. The other workers referred to by the employee perform different work and their arrangements are not relevant.

The Decision

The Commissioner dismissed the application, finding that:

  • The employee’s written request for flexibility merely expressed his preference to continue with his previous pattern of remote work.
  • He had failed to explain how working from home two days per week specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities, particularly where:
    • He had no specific caring duties between the core working hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm.
    • He and his wife were able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility including adjusted start and finish times.
  • The employer had genuinely attempted to engage with his request including offering alternative arrangements, and the employee had not explained why these were unsuitable.
  • The employer also had reasonable business grounds for refusing the request.

Implications

The case emphasises that the specific requirements of the Fair Work Act must be met before the Fair Work Commission will make flexible work orders.

Employees should ensure that requests for flexible work arrangements address the specific requirements of the Act and have sufficient supporting information.

Employers are reminded of the importance of:

  • Genuinely engaging with the employee’s request.
  • Responding in writing to the request.
  • If a request is refused:
    • Considering if alternative arrangements can be offered, and
    • Ensuring that any reasonable business grounds relied upon are properly supported and explained.

At WorkLegal our experienced team can answer your questions and put you on the right track. A range of fixed-price Initial Consultations will suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.