Managing flexible work requests: lessons from recent disputes

Recent flexible work disputes heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) have highlighted the importance of early communication, practical negotiation, and compliance with procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) when dealing with employee requests.

Although only a small number of flexible work matters progress to arbitration, many disputes can be avoided when employers and employees engage constructively from the outset. Most are resolved through conciliation once both parties understand their respective rights and obligations.

A recent FWC decision, Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115 (the case), illustrates how poor communication and procedural non-compliance can escalate what might otherwise have been a manageable situation.

The case

Ms. Chandler is a part-time employee in Westpac’s Mortgage Operations Team, part of a team of nine employees across Kogarah, Parramatta, and Tasmania. She works five days a week, usually 8:00 am–2:00 pm, and has caring responsibilities for two young children.

Ms. Chandler has a history of remote work with Westpac, including full-time remote arrangements before and after her maternity leave in 2021. In August 2022, she was required to attend the corporate office one day per month. Westpac’s Hybrid Working Model Policy (the policy) requires employees to attend a corporate office two days per week.

In December 2024, Ms. Chandler requested to work at the Bowral branch for two days per week instead of attending the corporate office. This was initially approved as a short-term measure, but in January 2025, the approval was reversed.

Ms. Chandler submitted a formal s.65 request under the Act on 17 January 2025. On 18 March 2025, she was informed the request was refused without reasons. She requested reasons the same day. On 19 March 2025, the employer cited the policy and stated that “working from home is no substitution for childcare” and that her arrangements “may change at any time at Westpac’s discretion.”

Further negotiations occurred, including phased return proposals. By 30 May 2025, Westpac insisted she return to working from the corporate office two days per week, by January 2026.

The decision

The FWC found that Westpac had not provided genuine and reasonable business grounds for refusal and failed to issue a written response within 21 days as required by section 65A(1), ultimately ordering that Ms. Chandler be permitted to work remotely to meet her caring responsibilities.

Lessons

This case reinforces that flexible work requests must be handled in accordance with the Act.

• Requests should not be dismissed solely on the basis of standard policy. Section 65(1A) requires employers to consider individual circumstances, this includes consideration for parents or carers.
• The employer is required to provide a written response within 21 days, as required by section 65A(1).
• In its response, the employer must clearly explain the genuine and reasonable business grounds for refusal of a flexibility request under section 65A(5). Often this can include cost, lack of capacity, or operational constraints.

Read the Act here for full details of your requirements à Fair Work Act 2009 – Federal Register of Legislation

If your organisation does not have a flexible work policy, now is the time to develop and implement one. If you already have a policy in place, then ensure it complies with legal requirements. When uncertain, consider trial arrangements or seek advice.

For guidance on managing flexible work requests, reviewing policies, or addressing related disputes, please contact the Advisory team at Master Builders ACT at (02) 6175 5900 or workplace@mba.org.au.