From policy to practice: Shaping your flexible work strategy

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling, Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, serves as a serious warning to employers shaping rejections to work from home requests.

In January 2025, Ms. Chandler made a formal request to her employer under s.65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a flexible working arrangement: seeking to work from home on full-time basis (or at least largely so) in order to manage school drop-offs/pick-ups for her young children and reduce the severe, almost 2 hour commute from her home to the nearest corporate office.

With a history of successfully working from home since 2017, either partly or wholly, and upon receiving her first rejection to her request, Ms. Chandler offered to work two days per week from the closest branch as an alternative, however to no avail, received her second rejection.

The Westpac’s ‘Hybrid Working Model’ requires employees to attend a corporate office at least two days per week. For Ms Chandler that would mean commuting for 2 hours from her kids’ school to the nearest corporate office and another 2 hours at the end of the day. Her request was principally based on her being solely responsible for the school drop-offs and pick-up.

In October 2025 the FWC ruled in favour of Ms Chandler and ordered Westpac to grant the requested flexible working arrangement on the basis that:

• It failed to meet procedural requirements under section 65 of the Act:
  • not responding within 21 days;
  • not genuinely consulting or negotiating with the employee; and
  • did not take into account the consequences and impact of a refusal on the employee.
• It failed in establishing ‘reasonable business grounds’ for refusal with the arguments that were put forward for basis of rejection being:
  • team collaboration, training, stakeholder interaction.
• It’s basis of rejection due to reasonable business grounds was deemed too general and not substantiated with concrete evidence, meanwhile, the evidence showed Ms Chandler and her team had been working remotely for years and performing strongly.

To the contrary, this indicated that Ms Chandler’s role was capable of being performed entirely remotely with no negative impact on the business operations or the overall team collaboration.

This decision is significant for a number of reasons:

• Reinforces – that flexible working arrangements are not purely a matter of employer preference and highlights that employers have a responsibility to properly assess each request on its merits and manage WFH requests accordingly.
• Sets a precedent – that employers cannot rely purely on generalised statements to refuse request based on business grounds but must consider and provide specific and tailored replies to individual requests with genuine consideration to the impact of rejections.
• Emphasises – the importance of procedurally fair processes, with timely written responses, genuine consultation, genuinely considering alternatives and clearly outlining specific, quantifiable business grounds for the refusal.
• Consider – reasonable alternatives and attempts to compromise with employees, document discussions and reasons why alternatives may not suffice.
• Consistency – when it comes to your workplace frameworks, it is vital that employer agreements and policies don’t just sit on a shelf but are aligned with the requirements of the Act and the FW employment instrument. Crucially these requests must be addressed in accordance with those same rules.

If you have concerns or questions regarding flexible working arrangements, please contact us below and one of Workplace Strategists will be in touch within 24 hours.