Implementing Flexible Work Policies

Last week the Fair Work Commission decided a flexible working arrangements dispute. I want to share with you two points made in the decision which come up a lot. 1. There must be a link between the circumstance and the flexibility The employee had relocated from Tully (near his workplace) to Townsville (a couple of hours away) for better schooling opportunities for his children. One child went to school in Townsville. The other moved back to the school he attended in Tully. This meant the employee was in Tully (with his son), while his wife was in Townsville (with his daughter). The employee requested to work remotely from Townsville one week a month, stating it would allow him to care for his children and provide additional support to his wife. During the hearing, the employee explained he would spend the one week with his daughter in Townsville, while his wife would switch with him and live with their son in Tully, giving him respite from caring for his son. The Commission found the employee's request was not validly made under the Act. While the employee had school aged children, the Commission found it was 'not enough to simply have children and to desire to spend more time with them', stating the purpose of the provisions is not to 'promote work-life balance'. The Commission set out it is an employee's role to articulate how their request relates to their circumstances. In this instance, there were no specific 'needs' the request was made to fill (eg to allow the employee to pick up or drop off his children). Rather, it was to facilitate his wife caring for his son following their own decision to have different living locations. Quoting a case earlier this year, the Commission set out that an employee '... cannot simply invoke a personal attribute and expect to be able to work in a manner of his choosing.' 2. The test isn't whether an employer could accommodate the request, it's whether they had reasonable business ground to refuse it The grounds to refuse the request included that at least half of the employee's duties required him to be onsite. If the Applicant could not be onsite, another employee would be needed, and that employee would receive a higher duties allowance. They also couldn't complete their usual tasks for that day, with only a small number of staff on-site. The employee did not respond to these other than to say his employer could accommodate the request because it was able to operate when employees were on leave. The Commission found reasonable business grounds existed for denying the request. The flexible working arrangements regime is an important one. This case is a timely reminder that employees need to link their needs to their circumstances, and that disputes should focus on whether reasonable business grounds for a refusal existed.

💡Interesting commentary from Michael Byrnes at HRM Online, on what the recent Westpac Fair Work Commission ruling means for employers. He says it wasn’t a ‘right to work from home’ case. It was a dispute over a flexible work request made by an eligible employee – in this instance, a parent of school-aged children. Under the FWA, only certain categories of employees can make such requests, including those who are pregnant, caring for children or family members, living with a disability, aged 55 or older, or experiencing family and domestic violence. In this case, the employee’s request to work from home was directly tied to her caring responsibilities – a critical link that strengthened her claim. The Commission found that her need to pick up and drop off her two children from school was clearly connected to her role as a parent, bringing her within the Act’s protection. The outcome in Westpac’s case was shaped by the particular facts. The employee had: ✅ Been working remotely since 2017 – long before COVID-19 made remote work commonplace. ✅ Consistently met performance expectations while working from home. ✅ Been part of a team that had demonstrated it could perform effectively online. ✅ Initially had her request approved before that decision was later reversed without clear rationale. Taken together, these factors created a compelling picture of an employee whose performance and role suitability supported continued remote work. For employers, the takeaway is that personal choices don’t automatically justify remote work – but neither can long-standing flexible arrangements be reversed arbitrarily once expectations and precedents have been set Westpac argued that its decision was based on “reasonable business grounds”, including the need for collaboration, engagement, mentoring and alignment with operational processes. However, these claims were found to be generalised and lacking in evidence. When examined closely, they didn’t hold up against the employee’s specific working context: ❌ The team “huddles” Westpac referred to were being conducted online via Microsoft Teams. ❌ Most team members were located in different states. ❌ There had been no new recruits requiring in-person mentoring since 2022, and the employee had previously mentored colleagues remotely with success. ❌ Training sessions were available online, further undermining the need for physical presence. ❌ The Commission found the role was well-suited to remote work and that Westpac’s reversal lacked a substantiated business rationale. For HR teams, this highlights the importance of ensuring that “reasonable business grounds” are specific, evidence-based and demonstrably relevant to the role in question. ❓So what does justify ‘reasonable business grounds’ for refusing a WFH request? As always, keen to hear your thoughts, opinions and experiences. 🙏🏻 WorkFLEX-Australia #wfh #workfromhome #worklifebalance Link to full article in comments section below 👇🏻

A topic of conversation the last week or so that's come out consistently amongst the HR fraternity in Singapore has been around Tripartite Guidelines on FWA requests. 🇸🇬 is taking a significant step forward in promoting work-life balance and inclusivity with the introduction of the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (thanks to the robust work by Tan See Leng and his team at the Ministry of Manpower, National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF)). These guidelines will revolutionize how employees and employers approach flexible work arrangements. 💭 So what is the TG-FWAR? ✨ The TG-FWAR is a framework designed to facilitate a more structured and transparent process for FWA requests and discussions. It encourages open communication, mutual understanding, and collaboration between employers and employees 💭 What are some of the key highlights for employees? ✨ Right to Request: All employees with at least 26 weeks of service will have the right to request FWAs ✨ Reasoned Response: Employers are obligated to provide a reasoned response to FWA requests within a reasonable timeframe ✨ Appeal Mechanism: An appeal mechanism is in place for employees who are unhappy with their employer's decision 💭 What are some of the key highlights for employers? ✨ Structured Process: The guidelines provide a clear and structured process for handling FWA requests, reducing ambiguity and potential conflict ✨ Business Considerations: Employers can assess FWA requests based on legitimate business considerations and are not obligated to grant all requests ✨ Enhanced Employer Branding: Embracing FWAs can enhance employer branding and attract top talent who value work-life balance 💭 Why is this important? The TG-FWAR is expected to have a transformative impact on the Singapore workforce : ✨ Increased Employee Satisfaction: FWAs empower employees to better manage their work and personal lives, leading to improved morale and productivity ✨ Talent Attraction and Retention: Companies that embrace FWAs can attract and retain top talent who prioritize flexibility and work-life balance ✨ Diverse and Inclusive Workplace: FWAs promote inclusivity by accommodating the diverse needs of employees, including parents, caregivers, and individuals with disabilities ✨ Evolved Workplace Culture: The guidelines will foster a more open and collaborative workplace culture where flexibility is valued and encouraged The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement requests mark a significant milestone in Singapore's journey towards a more progressive and inclusive workplace. By empowering employees and providing a structured framework for employers, these guidelines are poised to reshape the way Singaporeans work and live. Excited to see workplaces embrace this new era of flexibility that works for everyone! Share your thoughts below👇 #Singapore #FWAs #TripartiteGuidelines #FutureOfWork #WorkLifeBalance

So what is new in employment law this week? In this week’s video, I look at the consultation issued by the Government on improving access to flexible working. It confirms that as part of the changes that are being implemented under the Employment Rights Act, a new reasonableness test will be introduced where an employer refuses a statutory flexible working request. It also sets out the Government’s current thinking on a new consultation process that employers must follow when they are unable to accept a flexible working request. Although that process is described as light touch, it looks more prescriptive than that. As such if that process is implemented employers will need to change their approach to dealing with flexible working requests and update flexible working policies to ensure the new consultation process is built in.

The Employment Rights Bill just made this illegal. Day-one flexible working rights are reshaping how we approach workplace flexibility. Forward-thinking HR teams are already adapting their processes to turn this change into competitive advantage. The Workers' Rights Bill removes waiting periods and frequency limits for flexible working requests. Employees can request arrangements from their first day, multiple times per year if circumstances change. Smart HR professionals recognise this isn't just about compliance, it's about attracting top talent who value flexibility from day one. Your strategic flexible working toolkit: → Rewrite job adverts to showcase flexible options as benefits → Discuss working preferences during interviews to set clear expectations → Create decision templates for common requests (hybrid, compressed hours, school run adjustments) → Train managers to explore creative solutions when initial requests need adjustment → Document decisions with clear business reasoning to demonstrate fair process The organisations winning are treating this as recruitment advantage. They're advertising flexibility in job posts and discussing preferences before offers are made. This positions you ahead of competitors who haven't yet adapted their approach to reflect what top candidates now expect. The opportunity isn't minimum compliance, it's using these changes to attract talent who value flexibility and forward-thinking employers. What opportunities are you seeing with day-one flexible working requests?

The UK just made it harder to refuse remote and flexible work – and I’ve already heard managers ask, “Okay… but what does reasonable actually mean now?” Here’s what’s changed. From 2026, UK employers are no longer expected to treat flexible working requests as a procedural exercise. They’re expected to treat them as substantive employment decisions. In practice, that means: • you must give clear, written reasons for refusing a request • you’re expected to consult with the employee before deciding • and tribunals can look beyond whether you followed the steps, and assess whether the reason itself stands up That raises the bar. “We prefer everyone in the office” isn’t enough. “It’s always been our culture” isn’t enough. “The manager isn’t comfortable managing remotely” definitely isn’t enough. What actually matters now: • whether the role genuinely requires physical presence • whether flexible options were explored in good faith • whether the claimed business impact is real, evidenced, and proportionate Preference doesn’t equal justification anymore. You need to explain why the work can’t be done flexibly – not just that leadership doesn’t like it that way. If you can’t do that, employees are in a much stronger position to challenge a refusal. I’ve spent years watching flexible working requests handled like admin: Forward the form. Tick the box. Deny on “manager discretion.” That era is ending. Most organisations will learn what “reasonable” really means the hard way – in a tribunal hearing, not a policy meeting. #RemoteWork #UKHR #FlexibleWorking #EmploymentLaw #HRCompliance #FutureOfWork

Can an employer refuse a flexible work request just because it conflicts with the enterprise agreement? Not according to the Full Bench in 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘗𝘵𝘺 𝘓𝘵𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘖𝘱𝘢𝘭 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘷 𝘔𝘢𝘺 [2025] FWCFB 224. Anthony May, a Team Leader at Opal Australian Paper’s Maryvale Mill, had been working modified hours on Thursdays since 2011 to meet his parental responsibilities. In 2024, the company withdrew these arrangements, citing non-compliance with the enterprise agreement’s roster provisions. Mr May formally requested a flexible working arrangement under s 65 of the 𝘍𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘈𝘤𝘵 2009, effectively seeking to finish early on Thursdays to meet his caring responsibilities for school aged children. The company refused, arguing that the enterprise agreement didn’t allow individual changes to rosters. The Commissioner disagreed, finding the refusal was not based on “reasonable business grounds” and ordered the employer to grant the request. Paper Australia appealed. The Full Bench granted permission to appeal but dismissed it. Here’s why: • The Fair Work Act sets out minimum standards in the National Employment Standards (NES), including the right to request flexible work under Division 4 of Part 2-2.    • Section 65A(3)(d) allows employers to refuse requests only on “reasonable business grounds”. These include cost, impracticality, or impact on efficiency - not mere inconsistency with an enterprise agreement.    • Sections 55 and 61 make clear that enterprise agreements cannot exclude or displace the NES unless expressly permitted.    • Clause 18 of the Maryvale Agreement mandated a fixed roster, but the Full Bench found it had no effect to the extent it prevented Mr May’s request from being considered on its merits.    • The employer did not argue that the request caused operational difficulties, only that it conflicted with the agreement. That wasn’t enough.    • The Commission’s order to grant the request was not inconsistent with the agreement once the NES primacy was applied. This case is a strong reminder that: ✔️ Enterprise agreements cannot override the NES unless expressly permitted. If a term prevents an employee’s request from being assessed under the NES framework, it will be of no effect. ✔️ Employers must show genuine operational reasons, not just contractual limitations, when refusing flexible work requests. ✔️ The NES rights are enforceable and cannot be displaced by agreement terms that are less favourable. ✔️ Review them to ensure they don’t inadvertently block NES rights. Include NES precedence clauses. ✔️ Train managers on what constitutes “reasonable business grounds”. What's the most common flexible work request your HR team handles? Drop it in the comments 👇   ---- Like this post? Like 👍 | Comment ✍ | Repost ♻️ #humanresources #pointyendofhr #employmentlaw

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐩𝐚𝐜 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐀 𝐖𝐚𝐤𝐞-𝐔𝐩 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐬 (𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘏𝘙, 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘛𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴). The Fair Work Commission recently overturned Westpac ’s refusal of an employee’s request to work from home permanently due to parenting responsibilities for six-year-old twins. - The bank had cited its hybrid policy requiring two office days per week. The decision highlights critical lessons for employers: 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: Westpac failed to meet the statutory requirements around timing and detail when responding to the request. These aren’t guidelines—they’re legal obligations. 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: A return-to-office mandate doesn’t constitute reasonable business grounds. Employers must assess individual circumstances and demonstrate genuine operational impact. 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐬: The Commission considered performance history, role structure, and team dynamics. Blanket responses that ignore these factors won’t withstand scrutiny. 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬: While Westpac might derive “some benefit” from office attendance, the FWC found the consequences for the employee’s family “seriously prejudicial.” For financial services firms and businesses across Australia, the message is clear: if your response to flexible work requests is templated rather than genuinely considered, you’re exposed—legally and reputationally. The Commission is scrutinising not just what you decide, but how you decide it which is good for thought as organisations shore up internal policies and compliance practices related to this recent precedent. For the full story see the link in the comments below 👇 #legalbegal #riskandcompliance #employmentlaw #employeerights