Source : Perth Now news
Employees with work-from-home arrangements are facing a reality check as Australia’s workplace tribunal handed down a series of landmark rulings in favour of the office.
While the remote work boom transformed the corporate landscape, recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions have made it clear that working from home is not an automatic right, and employers are successfully finding legal grounds to bring staff back.
Under the Fair Work Act, employers can only refuse a flexible work request on “reasonable business grounds”.
The FWC is now actively testing the boundaries of what constitutes a reasonable refusal, and the balance of power is shifting back toward the office.
The shift is also sending a warning to parents and caregivers as the commission draws a distinct line between accommodating a worker’s family life and letting remote work substitute for childcare.
This boundary was recently tested in Sydney, where payroll officer Rabin Gurung lost a bid to work from home on Mondays and Fridays.
Mr Gurung had sought the arrangement to act as the primary carer for his two- and four-year-old children while his pregnant wife suffered from a medical condition.
Despite the employer offering alternative compromises – including shorter hours or a four-day compressed work week – Mr Gurung rejected the options.
Ultimately, the commission ruled it was not feasible to act as a primary carer while performing complex payroll duties that required uninterrupted focus.
Similarly, in Melbourne, an AGL customer service worker caring for her ailing mother lost her full work-from-home demand, with the FWC ordering a six-month trial requiring her to come into the office for four hours every two weeks.
But caregiving isn’t the only boundary being tested; seniority is also coming under the microscope.
In a recent Victorian case, the tribunal established that an employee’s seniority and experience can be the very reason an employer demands their physical presence.
Steven Polak, a senior planner and building liaison officer at Macedon Ranges Shire Council, challenged his employer after they rejected his request to reduce his office days to just one day a week.
Mr Polak, who was already on a hybrid schedule working two days a week in the office, argued that his long commutes caused work-related fatigue, his dependent needed his car for university, and he could collaborate effectively via Microsoft Teams.
However, the council argued his physical presence was vital to mentor junior staff.
FWC Deputy President Kamal Farouque backed the council, ruling they had reasonable business grounds to deny the request.
He noted that while Mr Polak could perform “much of his day-to-day job tasks at home”, the council’s refusal stood because the planning team needed a reliable, in-person presence to build team connection and improve collaboration, which conflicted with Mr Polak’s request to stay home.
Despite these rulings, it is not a total loss for employees. The FWC still protects flexible arrangements that do not impact business output, such as a Sydney mother who recently won a dispute allowing her to adjust her hours to drop her children off at school.
However, these latest cases highlight that the FWC firmly views collaboration, team connection, and mentorship as legitimate business needs.
For Australian workers, a long commute or general preference is no longer enough to guarantee a work-from-home arrangement.
