Parent allowed to work extra day from home after employer fails to make its case for attending the office

The recent case of Kent Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 524 provides useful learnings for employers responding to formal requests for flexible work arrangements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). It highlights the importance of carefully considering your response and reasoning when dealing with employee requests for flexible working conditions.

In this case, Kent Aoyama, an employee of FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd (a freight and logistics business), sought to formalise his flexible working arrangements to better accommodate his parental responsibilities. Despite initially allowing Mr Aoyama to work from home two days a week, FLSA Holdings later required him to submit a formal application for any further changes. Mr Aoyama's request was ultimately denied, leading him to seek intervention from the Fair Work Commission under its new broad powers to conciliate and arbitrate such disputes.

As we explore in this article, the Commission's decision in Mr Aoyama's case underscores the necessity for employers to have well-articulated reasonable business grounds when refusing flexible work requests. Employers must ensure that their decisions are not only compliant with the FW Act but also consider the individual circumstances of the employee making the request – i.e. generic responses will not cut it. The case also emphasises the need for clear communication and documentation throughout the process to avoid disputes and potential legal challenges.

This recent case, decided by Commissioner Sloan on 24 February 2025, is the latest in a string of decisions regarding flexible work in the COVID era. For more on this topic, see our previous articles:

• Fair Work Commission offers guidance on flexible work arrangements
• Balancing business needs and employee well-being: FWC provides further guidance on return to office requirements

Employment background

• Mr Aoyama commenced employment with Frontier Logistics Pty Limited on 3 May 2021, working full-time
• Since July 2023, Mr Aoyama had permission to work from home on Tuesdays and Thursdays each week
• In mid-2024, there was a transfer of business from Frontier Logistics to FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd, and Mr Aoyama continued his employment with FLSA from 1 July 2024

Request for flexible work arrangements

• In August 2024, Mr Aoyama's wife changed jobs, reducing her flexibility in work hours, prompting Mr Aoyama to seek more work-from-home days to care for their child
• Mr Aoyama formally requested flexible working arrangements on 28 October 2024, proposing a schedule that included working from home (WFH) either two or three days per week on a rotating basis
• On the WFH days, Mr Aoyama stated that he would either have a nanny present or attend "Bubbadesk" (a childcare alternative where the parents have a shared workspace in the same building while the children are looked after in a separate area by nannies)
• Interestingly, Mr Aoyama was transparent in stating that while the number of hours worked would be the same, on the days he was with the child, he may need to change nappies, help with putting the child down for naps, etc.

Employer's response

• On 8 November 2024, FLSA Holdings held a meeting with Mr Aoyama and cited customer and supplier complaints about “babies in the background” and Mr Aoyama's work performance declining as reasons for denying Mr Aoyama's request
• FLSA Holdings offered a trial arrangement allowing Mr Aoyama to work from home two days a week for six months

Dispute and Fair Work Commission involvement

• Mr Aoyama filed an application with the Fair Work Commission on 1 December 2024, seeking an order to grant his original request (WFH 2/3 days per week instead of only 2)
• The Commission found that Mr Aoyama had validly made his request and that FLSA Holdings had refused it without reasonable business grounds
• The Commission ordered FLSA Holdings to grant Mr Aoyama's request until 31 July 2025, when his child would start attending childcare

Reasonable business grounds

• In considering whether there were reasonable business grounds for declining the request, the Commission found that:
  • FLSA Holdings' arguments focusing on the fact that Mr Aoyama's contract indicated he would usually work from the office did not acknowledge that the FW Act provides for an avenue to effectively change the employee's contract (with consent)
  • FLSA Holdings’ reliance on Mr Aoyama’s contractual obligation to devote his whole time and attention to FLSA while working was misguided and unrealistic
  • FLSA Holdings’ evidence about the impact the arrangement would have on the business was too limited – the Commissioner was only informed of vague comments allegedly made by a client and supplier about child noises in the background
  • no evidence was provided about how Mr Aoyama's current working arrangements (which were very similar) were having a negative impact on customer service or business productivity
  • FLSA Holdings did not tailor its submissions to the nature of the change sought by Mr Aoyama – it did not address how what he was requesting would be significantly different to what they were offering
  • no weight should be placed on FLSA Holdings' concern that granting the request could "create a precedent"

For employers, this case highlights several key takeaways:

• Legal compliance: Eligible employees have a legal right to request changes to their working conditions, and these requests must be considered seriously and fairly.
• Clear communication and reasoning: Employers should provide clear and specific reasons for any rejection of a request for flexible working arrangements, ensuring that the rationale behind the decision is clearly explained.
• Documentation: Proper documentation of all communications and decisions related to flexible work arrangements is vital. In this case, recording more detail about the complaints about Mr Aoyama would have strengthened FLSA Holdings' position.
• Focusing on the point(s) of difference: If you are not prepared to grant an employee's flexible work request in full, are there parts of it you might be prepared to accept in part? In this case, the key point of difference was whether Mr Aoyama should be able to WFH on Mondays, and FLSA Holdings was not able to sufficiently articulate why it was important for him to work from the office on this day.

The case demonstrates the importance of handling flexible work arrangement requests with care and building a well-reasoned case if you wish to decline a request. The Commission's decision underscores that employers must have objectively reasonable business grounds when refusing such requests and must ensure that their decisions are well-documented and communicated clearly.