Copyright dailymail
Aussie workplaces warned they could be breaking the law after ordering staff back to the office: What you need to know READ MORE: Meet the WFH mum who had a landmark win over Westpac By SARAH BROOKES - SENIOR REPORTER, AUSTRALIA Published: 00:05 GMT, 29 October 2025 | Updated: 00:22 GMT, 29 October 2025 When long-time Westpac employee Karlene Chandler asked to work from home five days a week so she could manage school drop-offs and care for her twins, she didn't expect to trigger one of the most significant legal showdowns in the post-Covid workplace. After 23 years with the bank, Ms Chandler's simple request under the Fair Work Act was refused. Westpac insisted she commute twice a week to its Kogarah office, 70km from her new home in Wilton, even rejecting her offer to work from a closer Bowral branch. This month, the Fair Work Commission ruled in her favour, finding Westpac failed to genuinely consider her request and lacked reasonable business grounds to refuse it. Deputy President Tom Roberts said there was 'no doubt' she could perform her job remotely, describing the bank's response as 'inadequate under the Act.' The case has been hailed as a landmark victory for working parents, and a warning to big business that the flexible-work era isn't over. Fair Work Commissioner Sharon Durham has revealed that hundreds of similar workplace disputes have been fought and resolved behind closed doors, with many employers unknowingly breaking the law. Speaking at the Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association conference in Brisbane this month, Commissioner Sharon Durham said she has developed a simple but highly effective method for resolving most work-from-home disputes before they ever reach arbitration. Fair Work commissioner Sharon Durham (pictured) has revealed nearly 300 cases were lodged last financial year over work from home disputes During conciliation, she said, if both sides are close to agreement, she encourages them to trial the arrangement for six months - then meet again to review how it's working. 'Of all the flexible-work matters I've handled, I've settled them all with a trial,' she told Workplace Express., 'Not one has ever come back because the trial didn't work.' Durham said the approach often diffuses tense stand-offs, allowing employees and employers to find practical middle ground without resorting to formal hearings. 'The key is finding practical solutions,' she said. 'That means the right people need to be in the room, usually the ones closest to the dispute.' Durham warned that many businesses still don't understand their obligations under section 65B of the Fair Work Act, which requires employers to genuinely consider work-from-home requests and respond in writing within 21 days. Under section 65B, employees are eligible to make a flexible work request if they've been with the same employer for at least 12 months and meet specific criteria, such as caring for a child, being pregnant, or being 55 or older. Employers, in turn, must provide a written response within 21 days outlining whether the request is approved or refused. A refusal is only valid if it's based on reasonable business grounds, and only after the employer has discussed alternatives with the worker and considered the potential consequences of saying no. Karlene Chandler won a landmark case against Westpac after the bank refused to let her work from home five days a week. She is pictured on Friday after picking her children up from school Durham told the conference the section 65B jurisdiction is still 'in its infancy', meaning both sides in disputes often fail to comply with the law. She cited one recent case where an employer ordered all staff back to the office five days a week, when a 55-year-old worker requested to keep working from home due to travel time and costs, the company rejected the request solely because it clashed with policy. Both parties, Durham said, fell short: the employee hadn't clearly tied her request to her eligibility under the Act, and the employer hadn't genuinely considered it - as the law requires. 'The employee isn't compliant because the request is not actually linked to her being over 55 and [the employer] isn't compliant because they haven't genuinely considered the request. 'They haven't explained how the business grounds related to the request, and they haven't considered other options. 'So, whatever happens, this matter is probably not going to go anywhere in arbitration,' the commissioner said. 'Someone's going to have to either withdraw' or 'they're going to have to file the make the request again'. 'The matter would just go around in circles.' But after Westpac's bruising defeat, that ignorance may not last long. Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano said the decision 'puts all employers on notice.' 'Westpac not only failed to meet its obligations under the Fair Work Act,' she said, 'but its refusal wasn't based on reasonable business grounds. 'Too many companies are hiding behind vague claims about 'face-to-face' culture - that's no longer good enough.' BrisbaneWestpac Share or comment on this article: Aussie workplaces warned they could be breaking the law after ordering staff back to the office: What you need to know Add comment
