WFH and flexible working arrangements – a timely reminder

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently granted a bank employee's request to work from home (WFH) five days per week to accommodate the care of her young children. The decision, Chandler v Westpac¹ (Chandler), has attracted significant media attention.

Commentators have made dire predictions of management chaos in the workplace arising out of Chandler. They have, however, overlooked the most significant long-term message for employers from this decision: the need to comply strictly with the process for dealing with flexible working arrangement (FWA) requests under the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

Background – FWAs

Since the implementation of the National Employment Standards in 2010, section 65 of the FW Act has allowed certain categories of employees with at least 12 months' service to request flexible working arrangements. Employees are only eligible to make these requests if they can establish one of the limited categories of 'circumstances' – including being a parent/carer of children who are school age or younger; a person with a disability; pregnant; over 55 years of age; or a victim of domestic violence.

Employers are entitled to refuse these requests on 'reasonable business grounds' such as cost, disruption to service, practicality or significant inefficiency. The employer must provide reasons for the refusal inwriting within 21 days. However, there was originally no right of redress if an employee was dissatisfied with a decision on their FWA request.

Changes to the FW Act from June 2023 introduced a more specific and robust process in s65A, obliging employers to engage in consultation, consider options and – most importantly – 'have regard to the consequences of the refusal for the employee'² before refusing a request. The provisions impose a clear obligation on the employer to provide details of the reasons for refusal, including consideration of the 'consequences' for the employee. In daily practice, this 'consequential impact' requirement tends to have been frequently ignored; most commonly overtaken by the broader dispute between the parties over the practicality of the employee's original FWA request and the employer's response.

The June 2023 reform also introduced an appeal mechanism for dissatisfied employees, giving them access to the FWC for conciliation and arbitration if necessary. Since then, the FWC has become the central battleground for flexibility requests.

Background – Chandler

There are some exceptional circumstances which influenced the FWC's decision in Chandler.

Karlene Chandler was a part-time employee with over 20 years of service who had WFH arrangements in place from 2018. Her role was support officer to a mortgage operations team which had nine team members who worked from three different offices. Ms Chandler had performed her role remotely, from home, for a long period of time and at a consistently high standard.

In 2021, Ms Chandler moved to Wilton, approximately 70 kilometres south-west of Sydney, and performed her role entirely from home. At the time of her flexibility request, she was the parent of two six-year-old children, and would have difficulty managing the timing of school drop off and pick up if she was required to make the two-hour commute to the Kogarah workplace.

In late 2024, the bank introduced a mandatory attendance policy requiring employees to be in a corporate office at least two days per week. In January 2025 Ms Chandler formally sought FWA approval to be able to continue to WFH five days per week, as she could not manage the travel to the designated office in Kogarah alongside her children's arrangements. The bank did not respond within the required 21 days.

In March 2025, the bank rejected Ms Chandler's FWA request, asserting that she needed to be physically present two days per week to 'collaborate and engage through face-to-face interaction' with co-workers. Ms Chandler challenged the rejection and, on referral to the FWC, Deputy President Roberts found in her favour, granting her FWA request to continue working from home.

In considering the issues, DP Roberts found that Ms Chandler had produced sufficient evidence of her parental duties, the need to be accessible for her children's transport, their age, her partner's absence due to work commitments, the logistical challenge of having to travel to an office in suburban Sydney, her longstanding WFH practice and high standard work performance.

DP Roberts found that the employer had responded outside the specified 21-day time limit, without having discussed the matter with Ms Chandler before rejection; and the response did not address the 'consequential impact' on Ms Chandler. Accordingly, the bank had not complied with the threshold requirements of s 65A(1) and (3), and the rejection was invalid.

Further, the FWC found the employer's rejection on 'reasonable business grounds' was not sustainable. The initial refusal provided no reasons at all and the subsequent reasons were 'cursory at best', lacking detail, relying instead on use of generic words such as 'impact on efficiency'.

The outcome in Chandler was consistent with a recent Full Bench decision in Nadon³ which came to a similar conclusion that a failure to take into account the 'consequential impact' of a refusal on an employee was a fatal oversight.

Takeaways

Chandler dealt with a compelling factual background verifying a genuine well-established work pattern and need for flexibility.

Historically, many employees have been unsuccessful in their applications for flexible working arrangements, particularly if they have not been able to establish a connection between their circumstances(parental/carer/age/disability status) and their FWA request. This is still a critical threshold issue for employees to establish. Employers have been able to defend refusals provided they can demonstrate reasonable business grounds⁴, and have set out those grounds in clear, sufficient detail at the time of refusal.

In Chandler, the FWC has confirmed that employers must now follow the new processes set out in s65A of the FW Act in order to refuse flexible working arrangement requests. DP Roberts has provided a timely reminder that employers cannot afford to let the time pressures and emotions of workplace disputes over FWA requests cause them to overlook their statutory obligations.

To avoid future problems managing FWA requests, employers should:

• understand the consultation requirements on FWA requests;
• be aware of and comply with time limits;
• be balanced in making assessments of FWA requests;
• critically analyse their internal reasons for refusal, and avoid applying blanket bans or policies;
• engage/discuss with employees;
• consider remedial/compromise proposals;
• reflect on the consequences of a refusal for the employee;
• be explicit in explaining grounds for rejection; and
• record/confirm agreed WFH arrangements.

For more information on WFH arrangements with staff and the implications of this decision, contact our Employment, Workplace relations and Safety team.

¹ Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, Deputy President Roberts

² FW Act s 65A(3)(c)

³ Nadon v Catholic Schools Broken Bay Ltd [2025] FWCFB 82

⁴ Quirke v BSR [2023] FWCFB 209; Gregory v Maxxia [2023] FWC 2768; Lloyd v ANZ [2024] FWC 2231; Police Federation of Australia v Victoria Police [2025]FWC 2171, 25 July 2025; Smith v Costco Wholesale Australia Pty Ltd[2025] FWC 2691, 11 Sept 2025