Westpac employee granted permanent work from home arrangement

Following on from the decision of Aoyama earlier this year (discussed in this Landers' insight), another large employer has failed to convince the Fair Work Commission that an employee should be required to attend the office in accordance with company policy.

In Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, Deputy President Roberts of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) ordered that a long-serving employee can continue to work for Westpac remotely on a permanent basis, providing further insight into employer obligations when considering an employee's request for flexible work arrangements (FWA) pursuant to section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

While the outcome of recent decisions relating to FWA turn on the facts and circumstances of each request, Chandler is particularly informative for large employers seeking to bring staff back into the office who have been successfully working remotely for some time, including where a company-wide policy mandates office attendance.

In particular, employers should pay close attention to the procedural steps set out in the FW Act before refusing a FWA request. Any business grounds relied on by employers in refusing a FWA request must be supported by evidence which is drawn from the employee's specific working environment (i.e. the team structure, format of meetings, performance and function of the employee and their team while working remotely). Further, a failure by employers to genuinely consider the impact a refusal could have on an employee, including any financial impact, could be fatal to their case.

Facts

The Applicant, Ms Karlene Chandler, was a part-time employee at Westpac for over 22 years.
She performed her role in Westpac's Mortgage Operations Team remotely for a number of years and did so "very successfully".
The overwhelming majority of Ms Chandler's team interactions occurred online given that her eight team members were based in different states, including Kogarah, Parramatta and Tasmania. A by-product of this team structure meant that face-to-face contact was limited.
On 17 January 2025, Ms Chandler made a request to Westpac for a FWA. Specifically, Ms Chandler's request was that she be permitted to work permanently from her home in Wilton, New South Wales, to enable her to manage school pick-ups and drop-offs for her two young children who were attending a private school approximately 25-30 minutes away from the family home in the opposite direction of Westpac's Kogarah office.
Westpac refused Ms Chandler's request for a FWA on 18 March 2025 citing that its Hybrid Working Model (Policy) required attendance at a corporate office two days per week. The closest corporate offices to Ms Chandler were Kogarah and Parramatta, both of which are located approximately two hours from her children's school. In subsequent discussions, Ms Chandler proposed a compromise position of working at the Westpac branch at Bowral for two days per week, but this alternative arrangement was also rejected.
Arbitration was ultimately required to resolve the dispute.
In its submissions, Westpac cited the importance of the Policy which provided for a mixture of in-person and remote work, enabling it to effectively manage on-site attendance amongst its very large workforce. Westpac accepted that it was not mandatory for Ms Chandler to be in the office to perform her role but argued that face-to-face interaction in Ms Chandler's immediate team would foster collaboration and meaningful engagement with stakeholders and other people across the business.
Relevantly, Westpac declined the FWA request before any discussions being held between the parties. It argued that, irrespective of procedural deficiencies, there were reasonable business grounds to refuse Ms Chandler's request and, therefore, its decision should be upheld. Specifically, Westpac relied heavily on the assertion that Ms Chandler's requested FWA was likely to result in a significant loss in efficiency and productivity and would have a significant negative impact on customer service.
Ms Chandler maintained that there were no reasonable business grounds for refusing her request. She argued that the proposed FWA would be unlikely to adversely affect team collaboration in circumstances where her team worked remotely and functioned well without the need for ongoing attendance in the office. By contrast, a refusal of her FWA meant she would have to consider her future at Westpac.

Key Findings

The Deputy President ultimately made orders that Westpac grant Ms Chandler's request for a FWA supported by the following reasons:

Westpac failed to comply with mandatory procedural steps

The Deputy President noted that Westpac failed to comply with several mandatory requirements set out in section 65 of the FW Act, including that:

it did not respond to Ms Chandler's FWA request within the required 21-day timeframe and its initial response on 18 March 2025 did not provide any reasons for refusal;
no regard was had to the consequences of a refusal for Ms Chandler;
the discussions that post-dated the refusal did not involve Westpac genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Ms Chandler about making changes to her working arrangements;
aside from a brief reference to its Policy, Westpac did not attempt to describe the business grounds for the refusal, or how those grounds applied to the request; and
the response did not set out the changes to working arrangements that it would be willing to accommodate, or that there were no such changes, or the effect of sections 65B and 65C of the FW Act.

The Deputy President referred to the decision of the Full Bench in Naden v Catholic Schools Broken Bay Ltd as Trustee for the Catholic Schools Broken Bay Trust [2025] FWCFB 82, where the Full Bench concluded that each of the matters in section 65A(3) of the FW Act must be satisfied before an employer is entitled to refuse a request for a FWA.

Business grounds were not persuasive

Westpac failed to persuade the Deputy President that there were reasonable business grounds justifying its refusal to grant Ms Chandler's request.
Westpac sought to rely on the widely held view that teams work more effectively when there is a certain level of office attendance and face-to-face interaction. Referring to the general benefits of team collaboration, Westpac asserted that it was important that Ms Chandler could engage more meaningfully with people across the broader Mortgage Operation business if on site. It also claimed it was important for Ms Chandler to be able to process documents in the office.
The Deputy Commissioner found that the evidence Westpac relied on as to the benefits attached to in-person attendance and face-to-face interaction were generalised and insufficient to establish reasonable business grounds for the purposes of Ms Chandler's request. He noted that Westpac did not quantify any supposed losses or negative impacts on the business which would justify rejecting Ms Chandler's FWA request. To the contrary he considered that Ms Chandler had been working remotely for a number of years "and doing so very successfully" and that "a loss of productivity or efficiency or a negative impact on customer service has not materialised as a consequence of the existing remote working arrangements".

The consequences of the refusal on Ms Chandler outweighed the impact on Westpac

The Deputy President was careful to point out that he had considered the fact that the request was made in circumstances where Ms Chandler had decided to move to her present location and send her children to the school of her choosing and also that she had not sought any assurance from Westpac that it would accommodate her choice of residence indefinitely through remote working conditions.
Notwithstanding this, the Deputy Commissioner found that Westpac had no regard to the consequences of the refusal for Ms Chandler. For example, Westpac did not consider the financial consequences that Ms Chandler would face if she was forced to enrol her children into before and after school care in order to attend the office nor Ms Chandler's evidence that she would have to consider her future at Westpac if the application did not succeed.
Weighing up the impact (or lack thereof) on Westpac's business against the impact on Ms Chandler's personal circumstances, the Deputy President found that the consequences of not making the FWA request would be seriously prejudicial for Ms Chandler and her family.

A FWA request cannot be limited by terms of an enterprise agreement

The Deputy President rejected Westpac's argument that s.65C(2A) of the FW Act restricts the capacity of the Commission to make an order other than one which is consistent with the terms of the Westpac Group Enterprise Agreement 2025 (Westpac Agreement), being an order which requires, at least, a mix of working time at and away from the office.
An employee's right to request a FWA cannot be limited by the terms of an enterprise agreement given that the right to request a FWA is a minimum employee entitlement under the National Employment Standards (NES), and a term of the Westpac Agreement cannot exclude a provision of the NES. Whilst the Westpac Agreement can contain terms that are ancillary or incidental to an entitlement under the NES, it is only to the extent that such terms are not detrimental to an employee.

Key takeaways for employers

Ensure compliance with procedural steps, including genuine engagement before reaching a decision

Employers must strictly follow procedural requirements under section 65A of the FW Act when considering and responding to FWA requests, including providing timely and detailed written responses.
Referring to a contract, policy or industrial instrument that mandates attendance in the office is not sufficient to refuse a FWA request, particularly given that the right to request a FWA is enshrined in the NES.
Employers must be able to demonstrate that they have engaged in genuine dialogue with the employee and have a positive obligation to consider the consequences of a refusal on an employee. These considerations must be articulated in the written reasons for refusal required by section 65A(1) of the FW Act.

Business grounds must be backed up by facts

Employers must demonstrate the actual benefits of in-office attendance in the specific context of the employee making the FWA request. Adverse impacts that would arise if the FWA is granted must be backed up by evidence.
It is likely to be very difficult to justify a refusal on the basis of reasonable business grounds in circumstances where an employee has been working very successfully from home for a number of years.
It is not necessary for an employee to have sought any assurance from their employer that it would accommodate a choice of residence indefinitely if they opted to move further away from the employer's location. What will be more relevant is whether an employer has permitted an employee to work from home over an extended period, and whether that employee has demonstrated that they are able to work efficiently whilst doing so.

Consider what is fair for this individual in these circumstances

As is apparent from the series of decisions in this jurisdiction, the Commission will seek to balance the rights of an employee against the operational and business needs of the employer. It is clear that, where the impact on an employee is more significant than any real operational impact that approving the request will have on an employer, the FWC will likely look to accommodate the employee's request.
If you would like more information about dealing with requests for FWA, please contact the Lander & Rogers' Workplace Relations & Safety team and refer to previous insights we have published about the Commission's decisions in relation to flexible working arrangements:

All information on this site is of a general nature only and is not intended to be relied upon as, nor to be a substitute for, specific legal professional advice. No responsibility for the loss occasioned to any person acting on or refraining from action as a result of any material published can be accepted.