The Fair Work Commission has ruled in favour of a Sydney mother who requested to work entirely from home, in a decision that could force major employers to reconsider their return-to-office mandates. The case, brought by Karlene Chandler against Westpac, has been hailed as a landmark ruling for flexible work rights.
Ms Chandler, a long-serving Westpac employee, asked in January to continue working remotely from her home in Wilton, 80km south of Sydney, to manage school drop-offs and care for her young twins. Westpac rejected the request, insisting she attend its Kogarah office at least two days a week under its hybrid work policy. A compromise to work from a nearby Bowral branch was also rejected.
Deputy President Thomas Roberts found the bank's refusal was not based on reasonable business grounds, stating Ms Chandler's role could be 'performed completely remotely' and that she had 'met or exceeded deadlines' while working from home for years. He said the supposed benefits of face-to-face contact did not outweigh the hardship her family would face if she was forced to commute.
The Finance Sector Union, which represented Ms Chandler, said the decision puts all employers on notice that flexible work refusals must have genuine business reasons. National secretary Julia Angrisano said: 'Westpac not only failed to meet its obligations to consider Ms Chandler's request to work from home in accordance with the Fair Work Act, but Westpac's refusal of her request was found to not be based on reasonable business grounds.'
Westpac had argued its two-day-a-week office attendance policy was essential for team collaboration and business operations. The bank said in-office practices such as team huddles and training sessions were not accessible to remote employees. It also argued that allowing Ms Chandler to work fully remotely would undermine its authority to enforce the policy on other workers.
The Commission criticised Westpac for failing to comply with procedural steps under the Fair Work Act, which require employers to engage meaningfully with staff and respond in writing within a required timeframe. The ruling is seen as a significant win for working parents and may set a precedent for future flexible work disputes.
