Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation 2025 FWC 3115
In the recent decision of Ms Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation 2025 FWC 3115, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) assessed the criteria needed to refuse a flexible working arrangement (FWA) request under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
Facts
Ms Karlene Chandler (Ms Chandler) was a part-time employee with over 20 years of service with Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac). In 2021, Ms Chandler and her partner relocated to Wilton south of Sydney to enable her to care and attend to school pick-ups and drop-offs for her two six year old children. Ms Chandler had a history of working remotely from home. From early 2017 Ms Chandler worked in the ‘Change Team’, where she was only required to attend a corporate office one day per week. In or around mid-2018, she transferred to the Discharges Team and worked remotely full time until she went on maternity leave in February of 2019. Once Ms Chandler returned from maternity leave in April 2021, she continued working remotely full time until August 2022 when she was required to attend a corporate office (Kogarah) one day per month pursuant to an arrangement entered into with Westpac.
Westpac had a hybrid working model (Policy) which provided for a mix of in-person and remote work. Westpac’s Policy required employees, including Ms Chandler to attend a corporate office 2 days each week. However, the closest corporate office to Ms Chandler’s residence were Kogarah and Parramatta, both of which took approximately 2 hours to travel to from Ms Chandler’s children’s schools.
In December 2024, Ms Chandler sought approval to work at the Boral branch 2 days per week instead of attending the corporate office. The request at the time was approved by Mr Brand (acting Senior Operations Manager). This decision by Mr Brand was described as a short term ‘olive branch’ to assist Ms Chandler with a transition to in-office work. However, in January 2025, Mr Potts (Senior Operations Manager) returned from leave and reversed the decision.
On 17 January 2025, Ms Chandler formally requested a FWA under section 65 of the FW Act. On 18 March 2025, Ms Foote (Team Leader) conveyed to Ms Chandler that Mr Potts had refused the request for a FWA. No reasons were provided for the refusal at that point. Ms Chandler requested reasons to be provided in relation to the refusal, on 19 March 2025, Mr Potts sent an email to Ms Chandler in which he referred to Westpac’s remote working policy and said that ‘working from home is no substitution for childcare’ and ‘your arrangements for working remotely may change at any time at Westpac’s discretion.’
Decision
Section 65A of the FW Act sets out clear procedural requirements for employers when responding to FWA requests. The FWC found that Westpac breached these requirements by:
- not responding to the request within the mandated 21-day period;
- failing to engage in meaningful discussion or negotiation with Ms. Chandler in regard to the FWA request; and
- neglecting to consider the personal impact of their decision.
These procedural failures were central to the FWC’s finding that Westpac’s refusal was not justified (i.e. there were no reasonably business grounds for the refusal).
In refusing Ms. Chandler’s FWA request, Westpac relied on what it claimed were reasonable business grounds, specifically arguing that the proposed remote work would likely result in “a significant loss in efficiency and productivity” or “a significant negative impact on customer service.” However, the FWC found that these assertions were not supported by the evidence. The FWC noted that Ms. Chandler’s role had been performed remotely for several years, with her team already distributed across Kogarah, Parramatta, and Tasmania, and there was no evidence of any negative impact on productivity, efficiency, or customer service from remote work. In fact, Ms. Chandler and her team had consistently met or exceeded deadlines and she maintained a high-performance rating. The FWC concluded that Westpac’s refusal was not supported by reasonable business grounds and ordered Westpac to grant the FWA, emphasising that the employer’s concerns were generalised in the context of Ms. Chandler’s actual work history and team structure.
Take home messages
This decision reinforces the importances of following the correct procedure under the FW Act when responding to FWA requests. This decision offers important lessons for employers when managing FWA requests and supplies further guidance on what must be considered when evaluating a FWA.
In addition to complying with the statutory processes and, genuinely engaging with the employee over the request, reasonable business grounds must exist to deny a request. Proper regard must be had to the actual impacts on the role and business. If a similar arrangement has worked effectively in the past, a general concern over potential productivity or customer service impact may not suffice.
Should you wish to discuss the matters raised in this article, please contact Lincoln Smith on + 61 8 8210 1203 or lsmith@normans.com.au, or Avinash Dasan on +61 8 8210 1280 or adasan@normans.com.au.
