Work From Home Rights in Australia: Why One Employee Won and Another Was Fired

Introduction

Two recent decisions have reshaped how Australian workplaces handle work from home disputes. In one, a long-serving Westpac employee won the right to work from home full-time. In the other, a software engineer was fired for refusing to return to the office and lost his unfair dismissal claim. The difference between them tells you everything about how the law actually works.

Why These Cases Matter

Hybrid and remote work are no longer novelties. They are entrenched in Australian workplaces, and disputes about them are now reaching the Fair Work Commission with regularity. Two 2025 decisions sit at opposite ends of the spectrum and are worth understanding in detail.

In Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, a long-serving part-time employee was granted full-time work from home against her employer's wishes. In a decision handed down shortly afterwards, a software engineer at PaperCut Software lost his job and his unfair dismissal claim for refusing to comply with a return to office mandate.

Both cases involved the same general issue. Both produced opposite outcomes. The reasons why matter for every employer considering a return to office policy and every employee hoping to preserve flexibility.

Case One — The Westpac Employee Who Won Her Request

Karlene Chandler had worked at Westpac since 2002, mostly in the bank's Mortgage Operations team. She was a part-time employee, working mornings so she could care for her young twin daughters. Several years earlier she had moved with her family to Wilton, a town roughly 80 kilometres south-west of Sydney's CBD and well outside commuting distance from Westpac's corporate offices.

She had been working remotely for years without issue. Her performance was strong. Deadlines were met. Her team was productive.

In early 2025, Westpac introduced a hybrid working model requiring staff to attend a corporate office at least two days per week. Ms Chandler submitted a formal request under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to continue working from home on a full-time basis so she could continue to manage school pick-ups and drop-offs for her school-age children. Westpac rejected the request. She took the matter to the Fair Work Commission.

Deputy President Roberts found in her favour and ordered Westpac to allow her to continue working from home. The bank had failed to meet both the procedural and substantive requirements of the Fair Work Act.

Case Two — The Software Engineer Who Lost His Job

Richard Johnson worked as a product engineer at PaperCut Software from April 2022. During the pandemic he had worked from home, and he continued to do so as restrictions eased. His original employment contract allowed him to work from his personal residence in line with company policy, but it did not enshrine his home as his primary place of work. It also required him to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from his employer.

In late 2024, PaperCut told Mr Johnson that his work location would change to the office from the start of 2025 under a hybrid policy requiring three days per week of in-office attendance. Mr Johnson refused. He argued the direction was inconsistent with his contract and continued to work from home. In May 2025, the company issued a final warning. In June 2025, his employment was terminated.

He brought an unfair dismissal claim seeking reinstatement. Commissioner Connolly dismissed it. The Commission found that working from home was something PaperCut had allowed, not something Mr Johnson had an unconditional right to. The company's hybrid policy was a lawful and reasonable direction, and his refusal to comply was a valid reason for dismissal.

The Key Legal Distinction Between These Two Cases

At first glance these cases look similar. Both involved employees who wanted to continue working from home. Both employers introduced policies requiring office attendance. Both went to the Fair Work Commission. Yet the outcomes were the opposite of each other.

The difference is not about who deserved flexibility more. It is about the legal pathway each employee used and whether they met its requirements.

Ms Chandler made a formal request under section 65 of the Fair Work Act. That provision gives certain employees a statutory right to request flexible working arrangements, and it imposes strict procedural obligations on the employer in responding. Because Ms Chandler fit a protected category as the parent of school-age children, and because Westpac failed its statutory obligations, the Commission could order the arrangement she requested.

Mr Johnson did not make a section 65 request. He refused to follow his employer's direction because he believed his contract gave him a right to work from home. It did not. The Commission examined the contract and found nothing that gave him an unconditional entitlement to remain at home. His refusal to comply with a lawful direction was the reason he lost.

Who Can Make a Section 65 Flexible Work Request

Section 65 does not apply to every employee. You must have completed at least 12 months of continuous service, and you must fall within one of the protected categories. These include:

• Being the parent or carer of a child of school age or younger
• Being a carer under the Carer Recognition Act 2010
• Having a disability
• Being aged 55 or older
• Being pregnant
• Experiencing family or domestic violence
• Caring for or supporting an immediate family or household member experiencing family or domestic violence

If none of these apply to you, section 65 does not give you any enforceable right to request flexible work. Your employer can still refuse, and unless there is some contractual basis or a separate protected attribute at play, you have no statutory right of appeal.

What Employers Must Do When Responding to a Section 65 Request

The Fair Work Act imposes a strict process on employers. Those who ignore it expose themselves to orders from the Commission even where their underlying business reasons may have been sound.

Respond in writing within 21 days. This is not optional. Westpac missed this deadline in Ms Chandler's case, which weighed heavily against them.

Discuss the request with the employee. A genuine conversation is required. Sending a rejection letter without engagement does not satisfy the obligation.

Try to reach agreement. If the requested arrangement cannot be accommodated, the employer must genuinely explore alternatives. Offering a token counter-proposal and moving on is not enough.

Consider the consequences for the employee. What happens if the request is refused? Will it affect childcare, finances, or the employee's ability to continue working? These must actually be weighed, not just acknowledged.

Only refuse on reasonable business grounds. Generalised concerns about collaboration, culture, or in-person productivity will not be enough. The Fair Work Commission expects specific, evidence-based reasons tied to the individual role.

Give full written reasons for refusal. A vague refusal that does not engage with the employee's circumstances is inadequate under the Act.

What Westpac Got Wrong

The decision identified several specific failings in how Westpac handled Ms Chandler's request.

The 21-day deadline was missed. The initial rejection contained no reasons. When reasons were eventually provided after the employee asked for them, they were minimal. Westpac did not genuinely try to reach an alternative arrangement. It did not weigh the impact on Ms Chandler if her request was refused, including the financial consequences of arranging before and after school care and the possibility that she would have to leave her job entirely.

The business reasons put forward were also deemed insufficient. Westpac argued that in-person attendance improved collaboration, culture, training, and mentoring. The Commission found these reasons to be general statements applicable to almost any office role. There was no evidence that Ms Chandler's remote work had caused any measurable loss to productivity or customer service. She had been performing well remotely for years, and the team had continued to meet its targets.

Why Johnson's Case Went the Other Way

Mr Johnson never engaged the section 65 process. His argument was contractual. He claimed his original employment contract gave him a right to work from home that could not be varied unilaterally. The Commission disagreed.

The contract permitted home-based work only in line with company policy. It required him to comply with lawful directions. It did not specify a primary place of work. When PaperCut changed its policy to require three days per week of in-office attendance, that change was within the employer's authority.

Because there was no protected attribute and no section 65 request, the question for the Commission was simpler. Was the direction lawful? Yes. Was it reasonable? Yes. Did Mr Johnson refuse to comply? Yes. The dismissal followed a final warning. It was not unfair.

What This Means for Employees

If you want flexibility protected by law, the statutory pathway matters more than the strength of your preference.

Check whether you fit a section 65 category. If you do, you have genuine leverage. If you do not, your employer's policy generally governs.

Make your request formally in writing. A vague expression of preference is not a section 65 request. State clearly what you are asking for, why, and for what period.

Link your request to your personal circumstances. The Commission looks for a clear connection between the flexibility you are requesting and the protected ground you rely on. Ms Chandler's request was tied directly to her children's school hours.

Keep records. Save copies of your request, your employer's response, and any exchanges in between. Procedural failings by employers have decided several recent cases.

Do not unilaterally refuse to follow a reasonable direction. Mr Johnson's approach was to simply not show up at the office. That strategy is rarely successful at the Commission. If you disagree with a direction, engage with the process rather than ignore it.

What This Means for Employers

Return to office mandates are not unlawful. Employers retain wide discretion in setting workplace policies. But when an individual employee makes a section 65 request, the policy alone will not justify refusal.

Follow the statutory timeline. Diarise the 21-day response deadline the moment you receive a request. A missed deadline can be fatal to your position.

Engage with the employee personally. Schedule a proper discussion. Listen to what they are asking for and why. Explore alternatives. Document what you discussed.

Ground any refusal in specifics. If you are refusing, your reasons must relate to the individual role, the team, and the measurable business impact. Generic statements about collaboration and culture will not stand up.

Consider the employee's circumstances in writing. Show that you weighed the personal consequences of refusal. This is a statutory requirement, not a courtesy.

Do not assume a hybrid policy overrides individual statutory rights. It does not. A company-wide mandate can co-exist with individualised flexibility for protected employees, and the law expects you to make that accommodation where it is reasonable to do so.

Drafting Contracts That Protect Your Position

The PaperCut case shows how contract drafting affects the outcome. Because Mr Johnson's contract did not specify home as his primary place of work, and allowed home-based work only in line with company policy, the employer retained authority to change the arrangement.

If you are an employer, your contracts should reflect the same principle. Avoid language that could be read as giving an employee a permanent right to work from a particular location. Tie any home-based arrangement to the operation of a written policy that you can amend. Require compliance with lawful directions.

If you are an employee, the inverse is true. If remote work is central to why you accepted the role, negotiate a contractual term that reflects that, rather than relying on informal practice that can be changed at the employer's discretion.

The Procedural Lessons That Repeat Across Cases

Several themes are now consistent in the Commission's approach to these disputes.

Procedural failures by employers are often decisive. Missed deadlines, absent reasons, and failure to consult sink cases that might otherwise have been defensible.

Generalised business reasons do not satisfy the statute. The Commission expects specific evidence tied to the individual's role and the team's operation.

The employee's personal circumstances carry real weight. The law requires employers to consider them, not just their own operational preferences.

Successful long-term remote work is treated as strong evidence that the role can be performed from home. If an employee has been working remotely for years without measurable detriment, it becomes very difficult to argue that in-person attendance is operationally essential.

The Bottom Line

Whether you will win or lose a work from home dispute depends less on whether your preference is reasonable and more on whether you have used the right legal pathway. For employees who fit a section 65 category, the statute offers real protection, provided the request is made properly and the employer's response is inadequate. For employees outside that category, a hybrid policy is usually a lawful direction you must follow.

For employers, a well-drafted contract, a sound policy, and strict compliance with section 65A procedure are the three things that determine whether your return to office mandate will survive Commission scrutiny. Getting any of them wrong can turn a straightforward business decision into an expensive legal dispute.

Both of these cases are now being cited in active disputes around the country. Every Australian workplace with a hybrid or remote arrangement should take the time to understand what they say.

Need Expert Guidance

Salbridge Lawyers advises employers on flexible work requests, return to office policies, and contract drafting, and acts for employees seeking to enforce their rights under the Fair Work Act.

Contact us at info@salbridgelawyers.com.au or call 02 9033 0495.

This article provides general information only. Every situation is different — seek specific advice for your circumstances.