Not all return-to-office disputes are created equal; if last year’s Westpac decision felt like a win for flexibility, the recent PaperCut ruling reminds us that the pendulum doesn’t swing in only one direction.
Last year, in Chandler v Westpac, the Fair Work Commission told a major bank it could not simply rely on its hybrid policy to refuse an employee’s flexible work request.
More recently, in Johnson v PaperCut Software Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 178, the Commission upheld the dismissal of a Melbourne employee who refused to comply with a three-day in-office requirement, even though his contract allowed him to work from home (or so he argued).
So, which is it? Is working remotely a protected workplace right, or can employers direct staff back into the office?
The answer, as these cases show, lies in the fine print and in the process.
What happened?
Richard Johnson commenced employment with PaperCut in April 2022, at a time when hybrid work was practically the norm. His contract allowed him to work from his personal residence “in line with relevant PaperCut policy,” and at that point in time, the company’s approach was broadly flexible.
But as pandemic settings eased and workplaces stabilised, PaperCut began formalising its hybrid model. After consultation and trials, it introduced a structured return-to-office policy requiring employees to work in the office three days per week by January 2025.
In December 2024, Johnson was told that his designated work location would be the PaperCut office from 1 January 2025 and that he was expected to comply with the new hybrid requirement.
He disagreed, citing that his contract allowed him to work remotely and that requiring him to attend the office amounted to a breach of that agreement. He did not, however, make a formal request for flexible working arrangements under the Fair Work Act, nor did he identify any personal or caring circumstances preventing attendance.
After warnings and continued non-compliance with the three-day requirement, Johnson’s employment was terminated in June 2025. He then brought forward an unfair dismissal claim.
What the Commission found
The Fair Work Commission dismissed his claim.
Why? Well, the central question was whether PaperCut’s direction to attend the office three days per week was lawful and reasonable. If it was, then Johnson’s refusal to comply provided a valid reason for dismissal.
Commissioner Connolly found that the direction was lawful, as it involved no illegality and fell within the scope of the employment relationship. It was also reasonable, given the company had consulted staff, implemented the change gradually, clearly communicated expectations, and provided warnings before taking disciplinary action.
Importantly, the Commission found that Johnson’s contract did not give him an unconditional right to work from home. His dismissal, in those circumstances, was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The role of policies and contracts
One of the most illuminating aspects of this case is how the Commission approached the employment contract and workplace policies together, rather than in isolation.
Johnson’s contract allowed him to work from home, but only “in line with relevant PaperCut policy.” It also required him to comply with lawful and reasonable directions and stated that he could be required to work at other locations from time to time. Notably, no fixed primary workplace was specified.
The Commission interpreted this as preserving employer flexibility. Hybrid work was permitted but not guaranteed permanently or unconditionally.
This reflects a broader reality: most employment contracts are drafted to allow employers a degree of operational adaptability. So, where remote work is expressed as subject to policy, it is rarely a standalone right. Which is to say, when drafting contracts and policies, flexibility can (and usually do) operate both ways.
Process and communication, the real MVPs
If there is a consistent theme emerging from recent hybrid work cases, it’s that process truly matters.
As seen in the facts of this case, PaperCut did not simply issue a sudden directive with an RTO mandate. It consulted with staff, trialled hybrid arrangements, introduced its formal model well in advance of full implementation, and warned Johnson in clear terms about the consequences of non-compliance. So, by the time termination occurred, the expectations were not ambiguous, and there was clear evidence to show this.
This procedural clarity played a significant role in the Commission’s reasoning. It was a clear example of the fact that company’s actions were structured and documented, and not vague and rushed (or worse, non-existent).
As we so often see, workplace disputes often turn less on the underlying policy and more on how that policy is implemented. Communication, notice, consultation, and consistency are frequently the difference between a defensible decision and a costly one.
Comparing with the Westpac case
The contrast with Chandler v Westpac is particularly interesting here.
In Westpac, the employee formally invoked her statutory right to request flexible work under section 65B of the Fair Work Act due to caregiving responsibilities. That triggered specific legal obligations on the employer.
The Commission found that Westpac failed to properly respond within statutory timeframes, failed to genuinely consult, and failed to provide adequate evidence of business grounds for refusal. As a result, the employee’s flexible work request was granted.
In PaperCut, no statutory flexible work request was made, and so the case did not revolve around the refusal of flexibility under the Act. It revolved around whether a direction to attend the office was lawful and reasonable.
Another distinction is in how communication was handled. In PaperCut, the employer:
- Consulted about hybrid changes,
- Gave advance notice,
- Issued warnings,
- Clearly explained that termination could follow non-compliance.
The Commission placed weight on that clarity. In Westpac, by contrast, the procedural missteps were glaring. There was no proper written response within the required timeframe, no genuine attempt to find a workable compromise, and the entire process felt policy-driven rather than people-focused.
Westpac demonstrates that employers cannot rely on hybrid policies to override properly invoked flexible work rights. PaperCut demonstrates that, absent those statutory protections, employers can enforce structured return-to-office arrangements – provided they act lawfully, reasonably and transparently.
So where does this leave us?
Taken together, these cases can be seeing as defining the boundaries when it comes to flexible work arrangements. Which is to say, hybrid work is neither an automatic entitlement nor an unfettered management prerogative. It exists within a legal framework shaped by contract terms, statutory rights and procedural fairness.
For employers, the message: if you intend to enforce return-to-office policies, consult properly, communicate clearly and ensure your contractual framework supports operational flexibility.
For employees, the lesson is equally important: if you qualify for statutory flexible work protections, engage that process. A belief that a contract guarantees permanent remote work may not be enough.
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 any workplace issue with compassion, fairness, and legal foresight, ultimately leading to the development of a more resilient organisation.
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
