Fair Work Commission Backs Employee in Remote Work Dispute with Westpac

In a recent decision of Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, the Fair Work Commission has required Westpac to approve an employee's request to work remotely. The case has attracted considerable interest. Principal Tim McDonald recently discussed the decision on CNN International. You can view the clip here.

Facts

• The employee was part-time and had worked at Westpac since 2002.
• In 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, she and her family moved to Wilton, a town nearly 100 km from Sydney's CBD.
• The employee had largely worked from home for the past few years and had performed well.
• Westpac had a hybrid working policy requiring staff to work from a corporate office at least two days per week.
• On 17 January 2025, the employee formally requested to work remotely from Wilton to help care for her two six-year-old children. Her partner's job involved frequent travel, limiting his ability to assist with school pick-ups and drop-offs. Westpac rejected her work from home request on 18 March 2025.
• The employee then proposed an alternative arrangement: working two days a week from a nearby branch in Bowral (a town near Wilton) instead of commuting to the corporate office in Kogarah, a suburb in Sydney.
• The employee argued that commuting from her children's school to a corporate office in Sydney would take nearly two hours.
• Westpac opposed the application citing reasonable business grounds. Westpac emphasised the benefits of attendance to foster collaboration in the employee's immediate team and meaningful engagement with stakeholders, and other people across the broader Mortgage Operations business. Westpac also referred to the benefits of employees beingphysically present in the office because it would assist centralised operational processes such as document processing, and more effective team communication.

Decision

The Commission ruled in the employee's favour and ordered Westpac to approve her FWA Request to work from home pursuant to section 65C(1)(f)(i) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ( FW Act). In doing so, the Commission made a number of important findings:

• Insufficient business reasons to deny the request - the Banks's business reasons such as concerns about productivity and customer service were not backed by evidence. The Commission gave weight to the fact that the employee had successfully worked remotely for years without any negative impact.
• Relevance of personal circumstances - denying her request would cause significant disadvantage to the employee and her family and rejected the Bank's argument that the employee's personal choice to move away from Sydney and select a certain school for her children should count against her.
• Failure to follow proper procedures - The Bank's failure to comply with the procedural requirements under section 65A of the FW Act, including timely communication of reasons and genuine consultation, invalidated its refusal of the FWA Request.

Key Takeaways

• Each case depends on its own facts. Here,the employee had been successfully performing her job remotely for some years, and the refusal of her request would likely mean that she could not continue working in that role, which were distinguishing factors in her favour - other employees may not be able to rely upon this argument.
• Nonetheless, employers need to genuinely consider and engage with an individual employee's flexible work requests and, if rejecting a request on reasonable business grounds, employers will need to explain those grounds.
• When permitting flexible work arrangements, consideration should be given as to whether such arrangements should have review and/or end date.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.