Can your boss say no to working from home?

Whilst a COVID-19 locked down world hopefully remains a thing of the past, the flexible working arrangements introduced by the pandemic might not be.

On 20 October 2025, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) delivered a decision in Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, serving as a reminder of an employees continued right to work from home arrangements in a post-pandemic world.

Background to the case

Karlene Chandler, employee of Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac) and mother of two young children, had a history of working from home and made a request for a flexible working arrangement (FWA) on January 17, 2025. Ms. Chandler requested this arrangement due to her carer responsibilities, distance from her home to corporate offices, and ability to competently complete her work from her home office. This request was subsequently refused by Westpac. Ms. Chandler sought an order with the FWC that her request to work remotely from home, or in the alternative, that her offer of compromise of working 2 days per week at a more local Westpac branch, be reflected in an order.

Westpac cited that there was a genuine and reasonable business needs (per s65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)) for Ms Chandler to attend the specified corporate office and that the orders should by Ms Chandler are not consistent with the Westpac Group Enterprise Agreement 2025 (Westpac agreement). The legislation regarding reasonable business grounds is as follows.

1. Reasonable business grounds for refusing a request include the following:
   1. That the new working arrangements requested would be too costly for the employer;
   2. That there is no capacity to change the working arrangements of other employees to accommodate the new working arrangements requested;
   3. That it would be impractical to change the working arrangements of other employees, or recruit new employees, to accommodate the new working arrangements requested;
   4. That the new working arrangements would be likely to result in a significant loss in efficiency and productivity;
   5. That the new working arrangements requested would be likely to have a significant impact on customer service.

Westpac gave evidence of benefits of corporate office attendance, such as fostering collaboration, meaningful engagement with stakeholders and broader employees, and participation in various activities that help employees retain a customer focus, such as training sessions and ‘team huddles’.

Outcome of the case

The court ultimately found in favour of Ms Chandler and found that Westpac’s submissions were insufficient to establish reasonable business grounds. The FWC accepted Ms Chandler’s evidence that access to onsite facilities were not essential to her responsibilities, and that the structure of her team (with members working at numerous locations across the country), meant that in-person contact with other team members was not an ordinary part of the job. Further, Ms Chandler had previously worked remotely and continued to maintain high levels of performance.

The court also addressed Westpac’s submission that the order was inconsistent with the Westpac agreement, rejecting it based purely on the grounds that the inconsistency did not exist.

Furthermore, Westpac conceded that they did not comply with the requirements for a response to a request for a FWA, under s 65A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which provides that the employer, when provided with a FWA request, must:

1. Give employee a written response to that request within 21 days.
2. The response must:
   1. State that the employer grants the request; or
   2. If, following discussion between employer and employee, the employer and the employee agree to a change in the employees working arrangements that differ from that set out in the request – set out the agreed change; or
   3. State that the employer refuses the request and include the matters required by subsection (6).
3. The employer may refuse the request only if:
   1. The employer has:
      1. Discussed the request with the employee; and
      2. Genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employee about making changes to the employee’s working arrangements; and
   2. The employer and employee have not reached such an agreement; and
   3. The employer has had regard to the consequences of the refusal for the employee; and
   4. The refusal is on reasonable business grounds.

Westpac did not provide a response to Ms Chandler’s request within 21 days, and there was no evidence that Westpac engaged with other requirements, such as having no discussion of the request or genuine attempt to reach an agreement to accommodate the request. Nor was there any evidence that Westpac had regard to consequences of refusal for the applicant.

What this means

The outcome of this case highlights that employers cannot merely rely on internal company policy in refusal for a FWA request. They must have regard to reasons set out in the Fair Work Act.

Additionally, employees should be aware of their right to detailed and specific reasons for why their request was not granted. Although flexible working arrangements are not guaranteed by law, there are certain legal entitlements to those requesting flexible work arrangements, so that employers and employees can successfully balance work with other aspects of their life.

📞 Call us: 02 4626 5077
📍 Visit us: See our locations

The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. This publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.