FWC grants full WFH status

FWC (Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] (20 October 2025)) has allowed an employee to WFH on a ‘permanent basis’ to care for her children, finding “no question” her role could be performed entirely remotely.

FWC ruled the employer failed to comply with mandatory steps under s65A(3) of the Act before refusing her flexible work request, including discussing the proposal, attempting to reach agreement and considering the consequences of refusal.

The employer’s refusal letter lacked business grounds and its claims of reduced efficiency and customer service were rejected. The employee had been working remotely since 2018, maintained high performance ratings and her team operated effectively across multiple locations using virtual tools. FWC found no evidence of productivity loss or service decline.

The employee argued refusal would have significant financial and personal consequences and she might have to reconsider her future with the employer if her application failed.

Unions hailed the ruling as “significant,” saying it puts employers on notice that genuine business reasons are required to refuse flexible work requests and arguing “Working from home is a right, not a privilege.”

Our Take

This case was unique on its particular facts but . . . it still does not create the widespread precedent some commentators (including the union) are suggesting. There are still lots of decisions flowing through FWC where a total WFH claim is rejected.

Hybrid work policies are not dead either.

The message is clear – judge each case on its merits. Rejecting WFH applications where there is an ‘uninterrupted’ history of it working is going to be difficult.

We consider the better message out of all of this is to genuinely understand productivity and effectiveness rather than focusing on the ‘square doesn’t fit the circle’ type of response. If something is working well – do we really need to stop/change it because it doesn’t fit the norm? Isn’t working productively and effectively an actual reasonable business ground to keep going – not stop?

This decision also reinforces two critical technical points:

• NES obligations override enterprise agreements—employers cannot rely on hybrid work clauses to sidestep statutory rights.

• Process matters—failure to consult and provide genuine business grounds is fatal.

Employers should expect increased scrutiny of flexible work refusals.

Action Items

1. Audit Flexible Work Policies - Ensure compliance with s 65A consultation requirements—discuss, negotiate, and document before refusing.

2. Respect NES Primacy - Review enterprise agreements for consistency with NES; avoid relying on clauses that conflict with statutory rights.

3. Provide Evidence-Based Grounds - If refusing, base reasons on measurable impacts—not assumptions about collaboration or culture.

4. Train Managers on Legal Obligations - Educate leaders on handling flexible work requests under the Act and NES hierarchy. Relying on formulaic responses is dangerous and likely to be unsuccessful.

5. Document All Steps - Keep clear records of discussions, proposals and evidence supporting any refusal to mitigate risk.

Edge Legal

Relationships. Respect. Results