Every now and then, a workplace case comes along that perfectly captures where we are as a society – how we work, how we parent, and how we balance the two. The Fair Work Commission’s decision in Westpac v Chandler (2025) could be described as one of those moments, serving as an interesting reflection of how Australia’s workplace culture is evolving in real time.
What happened?
Karlene Chandler, had been with Westpac since 2002, as part of the bank’s Mortgage Operations team; the behind-the-scenes group that processes loans, discharges debts and keeps the wheels turning for one of Australia’s biggest financial institutions. Like so many of us, Karlene’s life changed post-COVID. Working remotely became not only normal, but essential for balancing work and family and she’d been doing it successfully for years – meeting deadlines, performing at a high level, and being rated as a strong performer.
But earlier this year, Westpac decided to enforce its Hybrid Working Policy, requiring staff to attend a corporate office two days per week. That was a problem for Karlene, as she’d moved with her family to Wilton, about 80km from the Sydney head office, and she has two six-year-old daughters at a school that doesn’t exactly line up with Sydney commute times.
Her request: Can I keep working from home?
She even offered a compromise, to attend a local Westpac branch in Bowral two days a week instead of making the long trek to Kogarah. That proposal was initially approved by her manager, but later reversed when a senior manager returned from leave.
When Karlene’s request was formally refused in March 2025, no proper reasons were given. She asked for the reasoning, and was told things like “working from home is no substitution for childcare” and that her remote arrangements could change “at Westpac’s discretion.” So Karlene took her case to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows employees to dispute flexible work refusals.
What the Commission found
The FWC found that Westpac had not met the legal requirements for refusing a flexible work request.
They had:
- Failed to respond in writing within the required 21 days,
- Failed to genuinely discuss the request and seek a workable compromise, and
- Failed to consider the impact of refusal on Karlene’s personal and family life.
In other words, Westpac treated the process as a policy issue, not a people issue and that’s where they were found to have fallen short. When it came to business reasons, the bank argued that being in the office was essential for “collaboration, team huddles and engagement.” But the Deputy President wasn’t convinced, stating that “there is no question that Ms Chandler’s work can be performed completely remotely.”
He pointed out that Karlene’s team was already spread across Kogarah, Parramatta, Tasmania, and South Australia. Meetings and training sessions were routinely conducted via Microsoft Teams. Team Huddles could just as easily happen online as they could in person. He also noted that Karlene had performed at a very high level while working remotely, and that Westpac hadn’t demonstrated any actual decline in performance, productivity, or customer service as a result.
Westpac’s claim that Karlene’s physical presence was needed in the office was not backed up with any evidence. As such, the FWC ordered that Karlene’s flexible work request be granted. Westpac must allow her to continue working remotely, which is a a result that’s likely to encourage other employees across the country to revisit their own flexibility conversations.
Why is this case important?
This decision underscores that hybrid work policies aren’t a blanket justification for denying individual flexible work requests. Employers must engage in good faith, follow the Fair Work Act’s procedural requirements, and be able to prove genuine business reasons if they refuse.
The ruling aligns with a growing recognition of the idea that flexibility is a workplace right, particularly where the nature of the work allows it. It also reinforces that “one-size-fits-all” policies won’t cut it when employees have legitimate family or caring responsibilities.
The FWC decision made it clear:
- Employers must genuinely consult and look for solutions.
- They must give detailed, evidence-based reasons if they reject a request.
- Simply citing a “hybrid work policy” isn’t enough to override the specific circumstances of an employee.
In Karlene’s case, her remote work history, performance record, and caregiving responsibilities all weighed heavily in her favour. Deputy President Roberts also addressed a key question many employers have asked since COVID: can we still insist people come in for collaboration’s sake?
The answer, based on this case, is: not unless you can prove it’s truly necessary for that person’s job.
Whether you’re an HR leader, a manager, or an employee, the Westpac v Chandler decision is worth paying attention to. It’s a reminder that culture and compliance must go hand in hand and that when work can be done remotely, trust and evidence should lead the conversation.
This case will set a strong precedent that:
- Employers must consult properly and document their reasoning when refusing a request.
- “Team collaboration” isn’t a standalone justification without evidence.
- The FWC will place weight on fairness and real-world impact.
In Australia’s complex terrain of workplace disputes and flexible working arrangements, Workplace Wizards stands as a beacon of guidance and support for employers. We specialise in offering tailored advice and strategic solutions that align with both legal requirements and company values.
Thanks to an experienced team of consultants, we’re able to help businesses proactively address potential conflicts by developing clear, fair, and flexible work policies. Our approach is not just about legal compliance but also about helping create a positive work culture that accommodates the dynamic needs of employees while ensuring the operational efficiency of the business.
By partnering with our firm, employers can confidently tackle the intricacies of modern workplace dynamics, ensuring they are well-equipped to handle disputes with compassion, fairness, and legal foresight, ultimately leading to a more resilient and adaptive organisational structure.
Call us for a chat to see what we can do for you on (03) 9087 6949 or email us at support@workplacewizards.com.au
Comments are closed.