Sydney Mum Defeats Westpac Office Mandate in Fair Work Ruling That Could Reshape Flexibility Fights
This piece is freely available to read. Become a paid subscriber today and help keep Mencari News financially afloat so that we can continue to pay our writers for their insight and expertise.
Today’s Article is brought to you by Empower your podcasting vision with a suite of creative solutions at your fingertips.
A Fair Work Commission ruling that overturned Westpac’s mandatory two-day office attendance policy for a Sydney mother has set a precedent that could tip the balance toward employees in work-from-home disputes, workplace lawyers said Wednesday.
Fair Work deputy president Tom Roberts found the major lender failed to establish “reasonable business grounds” for refusing the mortgage team worker’s request to work remotely from her home in Wilton, south of Sydney, rejecting the bank’s arguments as “generalised” and “insufficient.”
The decision, described as “significant” and “surprising” by legal experts, came as the Financial Services Union declared victory in the case involving the employee, identified as Carleen, who requested permanent remote work in January to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups for her two six-year-old daughters.
“I think anyone who wants to try and work from home all the time will be relying on that case and trying to say that the test for reasonable business grounds is a pretty hard one and has to be well articulated,” Tim McDonald, principal at McCabes Lawyers, told Yahoo Finance.
McDonald said the ruling appeared to “tip the balance more in favour of employees” seeking work-from-home arrangements, noting that Westpac’s hybrid policy requiring two days per week in corporate offices represented a typical arrangement among Australian companies.
“The fact that the Commission didn’t uphold [Westpac’s policy], I think, is pretty significant,” McDonald said.
The case centered on whether Westpac’s general preference for in-office collaboration outweighed Carleen’s specific caregiving needs and her multi-year track record of successful remote work performance.
Truth matters. Quality journalism costs.
Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. There is no corporate influence involved. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most.
Not ready to be paid subscribe, but appreciate the newsletter ? Grab us a beer or snag the exclusive ad spot at the top of next week's newsletter.
Nicole McPherson, national assistant secretary of the Financial Services Union, told Sky News AM Agenda the decision established important boundaries in flexibility disputes under the Fair Work Act.
“This is an incredibly important case because it creates a situation where employers do have the ability to require people to attend the office and also employees have the ability to make a request for a flexible working arrangement,” McPherson said.
The act allows employees to request flexible arrangements while permitting employers to reject such requests only on “reasonable business grounds.” Roberts’ finding that Westpac’s justifications were insufficiently specific could reshape how employers document and defend office attendance requirements.
Carleen’s situation involved a two-hour commute from her daughters’ private school to the nearest Westpac offices in Kogarah and Parramatta, making the bank’s two-day office mandate incompatible with her childcare responsibilities.
McPherson emphasized that Carleen had worked remotely for several years before formally requesting permanent home-based work, establishing a proven productivity record that proved crucial to the case outcome.
“One of the really specific things about this case was that Carleen had been working from home for a number of years before she had to formally make this request,” McPherson said. “Indeed, a number of her team members were based around the country.”
The distributed nature of Carleen’s team became central to Roberts’ decision. McPherson said the team was “already working predominantly from home in a way that was working incredibly well, both for individual employees and for Westpac.”
Performance data presented in the case showed Carleen’s team ranked among Westpac’s most successful units. “There was a lot of evidence in the case that this team was one of the more successful ones in the entire organisation,” McPherson said. “That was really important in the judgment for this case that there was no detriment to Westpac for these people working from home.”
The ruling arrives as major employers across Australia’s financial services sector push employees back to physical offices following pandemic-era remote work arrangements. Several major banks and financial institutions have implemented mandatory in-office attendance policies ranging from two to four days per week.
Business groups and workplace lawyers warned the precedent could make employers more cautious about offering flexible arrangements initially, fearing they might be locked into permanent remote work commitments.
McPherson dismissed those concerns as outdated thinking that would disadvantage employers in a tight labor market.
“I would hope that as a society we’ve moved beyond the idea of not employing women or not employing people with care responsibilities because they might take more leave,” McPherson said. “But also there is a requirement in the Fair Work Act to consider requests for flexible working arrangements and to grant them if they aren’t going to cause significant issues for the employer.”
Under the National Employment Standards, Australian workers have the right to request flexible working arrangements, including requests to work from home or another location. Workers must have been with their employer for at least 12 months and meet eligibility criteria, such as being a parent or carer of a child who is school age or younger.
The union official argued theoretical business concerns don’t align with practical workplace realities. “What we actually find with mature employers is that it works better for the employer and better for employees if they can have a mature, sensible, practical discussion about working from home arrangements that take into account the needs of the business so that people can get their job done, but also allow people to balance their lives outside of work,” she said.
When challenged about whether the ruling might make businesses reluctant to hire workers requiring flexibility during economic uncertainty, McPherson said employers couldn’t afford to exclude large segments of the workforce.
“I would be very, very surprised if businesses were willing to cut out such an enormous proportion of potential employees because they might need flexible arrangements,” she said.
McPherson noted the Fair Work Act grants flexible arrangement request rights to multiple demographic groups. “We know that many, many people have the ability to request flexible working arrangements, parents, people with care and responsibilities, people with disabilities,” she said.
Excluding those populations would amount to discrimination and poor business strategy, according to McPherson. “If an employer were to say, we’re not hiring anybody from those populations because they might need additional flexibility, not only would that be discriminatory, but it would actually be extremely an extreme disadvantage for the employer,” she said.
The union official pointed to Australia’s historically low unemployment rates as a factor forcing employers to accommodate flexibility requests to remain competitive for talent.
“When we have such low employment rates, such low unemployment rates in Australia, cutting all of those people out as potential employees would be an incredibly self-defeating move by any employer,” McPherson said.
McDonald’s assessment that the decision was “surprising” reflected industry expectations that Fair Work would uphold standard hybrid policies implemented across corporate Australia. The fact that Roberts found Westpac’s justifications insufficient despite the bank citing collaboration benefits suggests employers will need more concrete operational evidence to refuse flexibility requests.
The case represents the latest front in ongoing battles over workplace flexibility that intensified as pandemic-era remote work arrangements became normalized. Many employees who proved productivity while working from home now resist returning to traditional office-based schedules, while employers cite collaboration benefits and company culture concerns in pushing for physical presence.
Financial services firms have taken varied approaches to post-pandemic office policies. Some major banks mandated four-day office weeks, while others adopted three-day hybrid models. Employee pushback against rigid mandates has ranged from quiet resistance to formal legal challenges like Carleen’s case.
The Westpac decision could embolden other workers with established remote work histories to challenge return-to-office directives, particularly when they can demonstrate sustained productivity and cite caregiving or other protected reasons for flexibility needs.
McPherson’s comments suggested the union views the decision as validation of its position that productive remote work arrangements proven over time should receive protection from arbitrary reversal based solely on employer preference for office attendance.
The case outcome may also influence how employers structure future flexible work policies, potentially requiring more specific documentation of business needs when denying requests and more careful consideration of individual circumstances rather than blanket mandates.
Business reaction to the precedent remains mixed. While some workplace lawyers warned of potential hiring caution, employee advocates argue the decision simply enforces existing Fair Work Act protections that already require good-faith consideration of flexibility requests.
The timing coincides with broader debates over workplace flexibility’s future as economic conditions shift and unemployment rates fluctuate. What began as emergency pandemic arrangements has evolved into fundamental questions about work’s nature and location in knowledge-based industries where physical presence isn’t operationally required.
For workers with caregiving responsibilities, the decision offers potential leverage in negotiating remote arrangements, particularly when they can demonstrate previous success working from home. For employers, it signals the need for substantive operational justifications when refusing flexibility requests from employees in protected categories with proven remote work track records.
The case underscores the reality that pandemic-era workplace changes continue reverberating through Australia’s labor relations system, with courts and tribunals now adjudicating disputes over arrangements that barely existed five years ago but have become central to how millions of Australians approach work-life balance and career decisions.
Sustaining Mencari Requires Your Support
Independent journalism costs money. Help us continue delivering in-depth investigations and unfiltered commentary on the world's real stories. Your financial contribution enables thorough investigative work and thoughtful analysis, all supported by a dedicated community committed to accuracy and transparency.
Subscribe today to unlock our full archive of investigative reporting and fearless analysis. Subscribing to independent media outlets represents more than just information consumption—it embodies a commitment to factual reporting.
As well as knowing you’re keeping Mencari (Australia) alive, you’ll also get:
Get breaking news AS IT HAPPENS - Gain instant access to our real-time coverage and analysis when major stories break, keeping you ahead of the curve
Unlock our COMPLETE content library - Enjoy unlimited access to every newsletter, podcast episode, and exclusive archive—all seamlessly available in your favorite podcast apps.
Join the conversation that matters - Be part of our vibrant community with full commenting privileges on all content, directly supporting The Evening Post (Australia)
Catch up on some of Mencari’s recent stories:
It only takes a minute to help us investigate fearlessly and expose lies and wrongdoing to hold power accountable. Thanks!