Working From Home: How Far Can Employers Push Back?

While remote and hybrid work have become a permanent feature of many Australian workplaces, employees do not have an automatic right to work from home.

However, recent Fair Work Commission decisions suggest employers can no longer rely on broad statements or general workplace policies when refusing flexible work requests. Instead, employers must demonstrate reasonable business reasons to refuse a request.

At the same time, the Fair Work Commission has decided to introduce a dedicated work-from-home provision in an industry-wide industrial instrument that sets minimum terms and conditions for many administrative and office-based employees. The outcome may influence how flexible work arrangements are regulated across other industries.

Together, these developments highlight the continuing evolution of workplace flexibility and raise an important question for employers: when can a request to work from home be legitimately refused, and what changes may be on the horizon?

How the Fair Work Commission Is Approaching Work from Home Requests

Recent Fair Work Commission decisions provide valuable insight into what constitutes a valid refusal of a flexible work request. 

In Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, the Commission found that Westpac's reliance on general policy considerations failed to justify its refusal of Ms Chandler's request to work from home. While the bank pointed to the benefits of in-person collaboration and managing a large workforce, it could not identify any specific operational impact or quantify any detriment that would arise if the request were approved. In addition, the factual circumstances around Ms Chandler having successfully worked remotely for a number of years and performing at a very high level saw the Commission ultimately rule in her favour.

By contrast, in Steven Polak v Macedon Ranges Shire Council [2026] FWC 2568, the Commission upheld the employer's refusal of a work from home request. The Council was able to point to specific factual circumstances, including that the employee was long serving and that, given the significant change the Council was experiencing, it required him to be in the office to help strengthen team morale and make his experience and knowledge readily available to the team. In addition, the Commission considered that the Council already offered substantial flexibility through a policy requiring only two office days per week, with employees free to choose those days. It was therefore not a case where the employee lacked workplace flexibility.

Taken together, these decisions highlight that the strength of an employer's ability to refuse a request will depend on its evidence. They need to demonstrate clear and specific operational business reasons why it is not possible to accommodate a working from home request.

Could Working from Home become a Legal Entitlement?

The Fair Work Commission has recently decided to introduce a work-from-home provision in the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 - an industry-wide industrial instrument that sets minimum pay and employment conditions for many administrative and office-based employees. The new provision establishes a formal framework for employees to request work from home arrangements and provides structure for resolving disputes, reflecting the growing prevalence of flexible work while stopping short of creating a broad entitlement to work from home.

This outcome can be distinguished from an earlier proposal before the Commission, which would have created a broader right to work from home. In rejecting that proposal, the Commission found there was little evidence that employers were routinely refusing such requests. Research before the Commission showed that most requests were already being approved in full or in part, and that refusals were generally linked to legitimate business reasons rather than arbitrary decision-making.

The Commission's most recent decision, reflects the view that flexible work has become an established feature for many administrative and office-based employment, while recognising the need to preserve employer discretion to manage operational requirements. Rather than creating a new right to work from home, the changes are intended to provide greater clarity and reduce the risk of existing work-from-home arrangements inadvertently breaching the requirements of the industrial instrument.

Currently, the decision applies only to the employees covered by the Clerks Award. However, the Commission's decision will likely feature in other award reviews, particularly in industries where remote work is common. While there is currently no indication that the Fair Work Commission intends to automatically introduce equivalent provisions into other industries; unions and employee representatives may rely on this decision as support for seeking similar work-from-home provisions across a broader range of industries.

A Case Study: Working from home set to become a legal right for employees in Victoria

One of the most significant developments in Australia's flexible work landscape is a proposal by the Victorian Government to introduce a legal right for employees to work from home. The proposed legislation would provide eligible employees with an entitlement to work remotely for up to two days per week, unless an employer can demonstrate compelling reasons why the arrangement is not feasible.

Under the proposed framework, working from home would be presumed to be reasonable. Employers seeking to refuse a request would need to show that significant operational, business or practical considerations justify requiring the employee to attend the workplace.

The proposal has generated considerable debate among employers, employee representatives and policymakers. Concerns raised by employers led to amendments to the proposal, including the removal of provisions that would have required employers to fund certain home office equipment and secure remote access arrangements. The Victorian Government has also delayed the proposed commencement date to allow additional time for consultation and parliamentary consideration.

While the legislation has not yet been enacted, it provides a useful case study of how workplace flexibility may continue to evolve. It also serves as a reminder that remote work is increasingly being considered not only as a workplace benefit, but as a potential employee right.

Regardless of whether the proposal ultimately becomes law, employers should consider taking proactive steps now, including:

• Identifying which roles can be performed effectively on a remote or hybrid basis;
• Training managers on how to assess and respond to flexible work requests consistently and fairly;
• Reviewing workplace policies to ensure clear expectations regarding performance, productivity, communication and data security when employees work remotely; and
• Documenting the business reasons that may justify requiring attendance in the workplace where necessary.

As expectations around workplace flexibility continue to evolve, organisations that develop clear, evidence-based approaches to remote work will be better positioned to respond to legal and regulatory changes in the future.