Westpac said ‘No’ to remote work; the FWC said otherwise

In a significant decision by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), Karlene Chandler succeeded in her request for a flexible working arrangement with Westpac Banking Corporation.

After more than two decades of part-time service in Westpac’s mortgage operations, Ms Chandler challenged the bank’s refusal to allow her to work from home so she could manage school pick-ups and drop-offs for her young children. This decision not only highlights the growing demand for workplace flexibility but also sets a precedent that could reshape the industrial relations landscape.

Here, our experts delve into the key details of the case and explore the broader implications of this decision for employers, employees, and the future of remote work.

What does legislation say about flexible working arrangements?

Sections 65 and s65A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) set out employee and employer obligations in the request for flexible working arrangements by an employee.

An employee can make a request in circumstances where they have been employed for 12 months and meet relevant criteria, such as having caring responsibilities. When a request is received, an employer must respond in writing within 21 days. If the employer decides to refuse the request, it must:

• discuss the request with the employee first and genuinely try to reach an agreement;
• consider the impact on the employee; and
• have reasonable business grounds to refuse.

Background: the details of the case

Ms Chandler commenced working at Westpac in 2002 and currently works on a part-time basis with hours spread across five days. She lives in Wilton, and her children attended school 25-30 minutes from her home. Westpac’s closest corporate offices in Kogarah or Parramatta involved a two-hour commute. In December 2024, Ms Chandler was approved to work from Westpac’s Bowral branch two days per week, which was then reversed by Westpac in January 2025. Ms Chandler requested a formal flexible working arrangement on 17 January 2025 to continue caring for her two children. Ms Chandler’s husband is self-employed and has limited capacity to take the two children to school.

Westpac refused Ms Chandler’s request on 18 March 2025 – some two months after she made the request. A senior Westpac manager contacted Ms Chandler to say that “working from home is no substitution for childcare”, and that “your arrangements for working remotely may change at any time at Westpac’s discretion”.

Ms Chandler’s union, the Financial Services Union (FSU), spoke to Westpac, and they exchanged proposals for Ms Chandler, including whether she could work one day from the corporate office and one day from the Bowral Branch. However, Westpac determined that Ms Chandler would have to commence a phased two-day per week return to the corporate office by January 2026.

The decision

Deputy President Tom Roberts of the FWC held that Ms Chandler’s request was work‐appropriate for remote arrangements. She had a long track record of effective remote work, reflected in her performance ratings. The team Ms Chandler worked in also operated across different states.

It was also notable that Westpac failed to engage with the process under s65A correctly. The decision was not communicated to Ms Chandler within 21 days, nor did DP Roberts find that Westpac engaged in discussions with Ms Chandler in response to the request, which it was required to do in circumstances of a refusal. Westpac also did not consider the consequences that the refusal would have on Ms Chandler. The refusal itself also did not outline the reasonable business grounds upon which Westpac were relying in refusing the request, beyond referring to Westpac’s work from home policy. It also did not propose changes to the flexible work request to accommodate Ms Chandler’s caring responsibilities.

DP Roberts still considered the reasonable business grounds, finding that the fact that Ms Chandler’s team already worked across multiple states, and that Westpac’s policy allowed for attendance at other branches to meet attendance requirements, meant that Westpac had not established the grounds it set out. Along with the fact that Ms Chandler had worked remotely successfully, DP Roberts found that there were no reasonable business grounds to refuse Ms Chandler’s flexible work request.

Key takeaways

Here are six key takeaways from our Citation Legal team:

1. Strict compliance with process matters: employers must respond to flexible work requests within 21 days and must genuinely engage with the employee before refusing. Failure to do so breaches the FW Act obligations.
2. Reasonable business grounds must be specific: a refusal must clearly set out the actual business reasons for denying the request, not just refer to a general company policy or preference for office attendance.
3. Prior remote work performance is relevant: if an employee has a proven history of successfully working from home, this may weigh heavily in favour of approving flexible arrangements.
4. Policy alone isn’t enough: the FWC confirmed that a blanket “return to office” policy cannot override individual circumstances or substitute for the required statutory assessment process.
5. Consider the employee’s personal circumstances: employers must show they considered the impact of the refusal on the employee, particularly where caring responsibilities are involved.
6. Procedural and substantive fairness both count: even if there are potential business reasons to refuse, a failure to follow the correct procedural steps under s65 and s65A can render a decision invalid and expose the employer to challenge.

The implications this decision brings for employers

While this decision has sparked a lot of discussion and certainly does impact how employers deal with working from home requests going forward, it’s important to remember the circumstances and reasons behind the decision. Ms Chandler had a history of working from home without significant concerns, and the nature of the duties in her role meant that it was reasonable to continue in this capacity. As well as this, Westpac did not follow the process properly – there was no response in 21 days, nor did it clearly explain what the reasonable business grounds were for denying the request. It, of course, remains the case that a different set of factual circumstances could result in a different decision.

This decision underscores how the post-COVID era of work is evolving. While many businesses are choosing to return to traditional attendance requirements, such as mandated ‘days in the office’, employers must have regard for the circumstances of their employees and operational requirements in imposing these mandates. This decision has confirmed that it won’t be sufficient to rely upon a policy that requires staff to work from the office.

If any of this information has raised questions about flexible working requests for your business or you have another workplace matter you need assistance with, please reach out to our friendly Citation Legal team for a confidential chat.

About our author

Zaynab Aly is a Solicitor at Citation Legal. She has a particular interest in the retail industry and regularly provides advice on workplace matters to find solutions for clients.