Flexible work arrangements: process and evidence matter – Chandler v Westpac explained

As employers continue to navigate the complexities of hybrid and remote work arrangements, a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) clarifies the obligations of employers when responding to employee requests for flexible work arrangements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

While the decision in Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115 has attracted significant attention and is seen as empowering employees to assert their right to work from home, it remains confined to its own facts and context. Nevertheless, it serves as a reminder for employers to review how they handle flexible work requests, ensure compliance with procedural requirements, and maintain clear evidence to support their operational decisions.

What is a flexible working arrangement?

Under s.65 of the FW Act, certain employees may request a flexible working arrangement. This includes employees who:

• have completed at least 12 months of continuous service; and

• are parents of school-aged children, carers, have a disability, are aged 55 or older, or are experiencing family and domestic violence.

Under this section, requests must be made in writing and clearly outline the change sought and the reasons behind it.

Employers may only refuse a request on reasonable business grounds and must:

• respond in writing within 21 days;

• consult with the employee before refusing;

• genuinely try to reach an agreement; and

• consider the consequences of refusal for the employee.

Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation

Ms Karlene Chandler, a part-time employee in Westpac’s Mortgage Operations team, requested a flexible working arrangement under s.65 of the FW Act. She sought to work remotely from her home in Wilton to care for her two young children, including managing school pick-ups and drop-offs.

Westpac refused, citing its Hybrid Working Model policy which required employees to attend their corporate office in Kogarah or Parramatta at least two days per week. Ms Chandler proposed a compromise: working from a local Westpac branch in Bowral (nearer to her residence) two days per week. Westpac rejected this as well.

Ms Chandler then sought an order from the Commission that her request for a flexible work arrangement be granted or alternatively, that her compromise position of working for two days per week at the Bowral branch be ordered.

Commission’s findings

The Commission found that Ms Chandler’s request met all the requirements of s.65: she had caring responsibilities for children that were school age (s.65(1A)), had completed more than 12 months’ service (s.65(2)), and made her request in writing (s.65(3)). However, the Commission found that Westpac had failed to comply with the procedural requirements in s.65A:

• Westpac did not provide a written response within 21 days (s.65A(1)).

• Westpac did not genuinely discuss the request or try to reach agreement before refusing (s.65A(3)(a)-(b)).

• Westpac did not properly consider the consequences of refusal for Ms Chandler (s.65A(3)(c)).

• The reasons for refusal were not adequately explained and ‘were cursory at best’ (s.65A(6)).

The Commission also examined whether Westpac had “reasonable business grounds” for refusal (s.65A(3)(d), s.65A(5)).

In refusing the request, Westpac relied on reasonable business grounds which included that the arrangements were likely to result in “a significant loss in efficiency and productivity” or “a significant negative impact on customer service”, but the evidence showed Ms Chandler’s role could be performed remotely and had been for years. The team was already distributed across Kogarah, Parramatta and Tasmania and there was no evidence of negative impact from remote work. The Commission found Westpac’s refusal was not supported by reasonable business grounds and ordered Westpac to grant the flexible work arrangement.

Key takeaways

This decision reinforces that employers must genuinely consider flexible work requests and provide clear, reasonable business grounds when refusing them. Employers should:

• have clear, evidence-based reasons if it refuses a flexible work request. Policies alone are not enough.

• always follow the correct process: respond in writing, discuss the request, and consider the employee’s circumstances and the impact of refusal.

That being said, a request for a flexible work arrangement must be directly linked to the employee’s personal circumstances (e.g. caring for a child who is of school age or younger), not just a preference for remote work.

Make sure managers are trained to:

• assess requests on their merits, not just by reference to policy;

• engage in genuine discussions with employees;

• document reasons for any refusal, with evidence; and

• respond within the required timeframe.

If your organisation is navigating requests for flexible work arrangements or needs guidance on compliance with the FW Act, our team is here to help. Contact us for tailored advice or to arrange a workplace training session.

Authors: Linda Mackinlay & Saige Levy

This publication is intended as a source of information only. No reader should act on any matter without first obtaining professional advice.