In a significant decision for employers navigating post-pandemic workplace arrangements, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has confirmed that employees cannot rely solely on past hybrid work practices to justify ongoing remote work arrangements. The ruling in Paul Collins v Intersystems Australia Pty Ltd (2025) underscores the importance of establishing a clear and legally recognised basis for flexible work requests under the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers adopted hybrid working models to accommodate public health directives and operational challenges.
However, in late 2024, the company announced a shift in policy, requiring all staff to return to the office five days per week from 1 February 2025. The decision was driven by a strategic focus on improving customer service delivery and fostering in-person collaboration.
The Employee’s Request
In January 2025, Paul Collins, a long-term employee, submitted a formal request under section 65 of the FW Act to continue working from home two days per week. He cited shared caring responsibilities for his school-aged children and the need for work-life balance. While the employer acknowledged his circumstances, it declined the request, offering instead a compromise of one remote workday per week.
Collins rejected the offer and lodged a dispute with the FWC, seeking an order to maintain his preferred hybrid arrangement.
Legal Framework for Flexible Work Arrangements
Under the FW Act, certain employees—including those with parental responsibilities—are entitled to request flexible working arrangements. However, the Act also provides employers with the right to refuse such requests on “reasonable business grounds.” When disputes arise, the FWC must assess:
- Whether the employee’s request was validly made under the Act; and
- Whether the employer’s refusal was based on reasonable business grounds.
Arguments Presented
Collins argued that his long-standing hybrid arrangement had not impacted his performance and supported his family responsibilities. However, the employer maintained that the request lacked a clear link to those responsibilities, noting Collins had no direct caring duties during core hours. It also cited operational needs—such as improved customer service and team collaboration—as justification for requiring full-time office attendance.
The Commission’s Decision
The FWC ultimately found in favour of the employer. It held that Collins had not validly made his request under section 65 of the FW Act, as he failed to establish a clear connection between his parental responsibilities and the proposed working arrangement. The Commission noted that while Collins shared caring duties with his wife, he was able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility in start and finish times.
Importantly, the Commission emphasised that a preference to continue a previously permitted arrangement does not, in itself, constitute a valid basis for a flexible work request under the FW Act. The decision also affirmed that the employer’s refusal was grounded in reasonable business considerations, including the need for in-office collaboration and improved service delivery.
Implications for Employers and Employees
This decision provides valuable guidance for both employers and employees navigating flexible work arrangements in the post-pandemic landscape. It reinforces that:
- Employees must clearly articulate how their personal circumstances align with the statutory grounds for flexible work requests; and
- Employers are entitled to restructure workplace arrangements based on legitimate operational needs, provided their decisions are reasonable and well-documented.
Employers should ensure that any refusal of a flexible work request is supported by clear business rationale and communicated transparently. Employees, meanwhile, should be mindful that past practices—no matter how effective—do not automatically entitle them to ongoing flexibility.
As the landscape of flexible working arrangements continues to evolve, both employers and employees must stay informed and proactive to navigate these changes effectively. For tailored advice on flexible working arrangement obligations and compliance, contact Daniel Morgan (daniel@morganegnlish.com.au) and our Workplace + Conduct team at M+E today.
