The Brief:
Fair Work Commission finds Westpac had no reasonable business grounds to refuse WFH request.
Mortgage banker wins WFH order, despite the in-office policy.
A Westpac banker won a landmark Fair Work case, forcing Westpac to let her WFH every day after it failed to move her back in the office.
What happened
Karlene Chandler, a 20-year Westpac veteran in the mortgage team, asked to WFH so she could manage school runs for her two six-year-olds under s. 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Westpac refused, pointing to its policy that mandated staff attend a corporate office twice a week. The closest offices were about a two-hour trip from the school.
Ms Chandler pushed for alternative arrangements, including working at a closer branch.
This was swiftly rejected by Westpac.
After being pushed for reasons, a Senior Operations Manager said, “working from home is no substitution for childcare”, and “your arrangements for working remotely may change at any time at Westpac’s discretion.”
Westpac’s position
Westpac maintained it had genuine and reasonable business grounds for enforcing its policy. Wespact argued that in-office attendance improves teamwork, huddles, training, and mentoring.
Outcome
The Commission wasn’t persuaded.
The evidence failed to establish reasonable business grounds. For instance, ‘team huddles’ runs on Microsoft Teams, training is online, ad hoc social events are often interstate, and Ms Chandler hadn’t mentored anyone for years.
Ms Chandler’s work can be performed completely remotely. In fact, Westpac had let her WFH for years before changing its tune.
Westpac had no reason to refuse, as “she has been working remotely for a number of years and doing so very successfully.” He said employers must have “reasonable business grounds,” such as a loss of productivity, to refuse a flexible work request.
Westpac’s initial refusal also came before any real dialogue with Ms Chandler about genuine alternatives, which is required by s. 65A(3).
Westpac’s response
A Westpac spokesperson said: “We believe our current approach of 2-3 days per week in the office strikes the right balance for our people and customers.”
“Westpac will consider the ruling.”
The trend
Flexible work disputes are rising, but the outcomes cut both ways.
The FWC rejected an application brought by a technical specialist wanting to WFH, citing parental duties for two school-aged kids. The Commission found no evidence that he needed both days at home, and even if the request was valid, the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse.
The FWC ordered Metcash to grant an employee a full WFH exemption from its 3-day office rule, after she argued returning risked exposing her daughter to health risks. While Metcash pointed to collaboration and culture, it gave no evidence that those outweighed the health risks.
The FWC dismissed an employee’s claim that her employer’s refusal to let her continue working remotely and take on a second job amounted to workplace bullying.