Work from Home “Chaos” Overstated: What the Chandler Decision and Greens’ Reforms Really Mean for Workers
- Brian AJ Newman LLB
- Nov 10
- 7 min read
The recent headlines claiming “chaos” over the Fair Work Commission’s latest work-from-home decision have been met with scepticism from leading employment lawyers. As the dust settles from the Chandler v Westpac ruling, which upheld an employee’s right to continue working remotely, the conversation is shifting from panic to perspective — and from employer discretion to employee rights.
The decision has reignited national debate over flexible working arrangements. It follows the Australian Greens’ introduction of legislation proposing that employees be entitled to work remotely for at least two days per week, unless doing so is “impractical or impossible”. This represents the first serious push towards codifying remote work as a workplace right rather than a privilege.
Despite media claims of “WFH chaos”, employer-side lawyers have pointed out that the fears of unmanageable disruption are exaggerated. The evidence shows that hybrid work arrangements, when handled lawfully and sensibly, can operate smoothly while supporting both productivity and wellbeing.
The Chandler Decision: A Turning Point
In Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, the Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of a bank employee who sought to continue working remotely full-time. Westpac’s refusal was found to have breached the consultation obligations under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Commission made clear that flexible working requests must be treated seriously, with genuine engagement, individual assessment, and transparent reasoning. Employers cannot rely on broad statements such as “we need everyone back in the office for collaboration” unless they can demonstrate why physical presence is genuinely required for that particular role.
The ruling reinforces that a lawful refusal must be based on reasonable business grounds, supported by evidence — not generalised managerial preference.
The Greens’ Push for a Two-Day WFH Right
Building on this momentum, the Greens’ proposal would grant workers a statutory right to work from home at least two days per week unless the nature of the work makes it impractical or impossible. That caveat is crucial: not every job can be performed remotely, and the legislation is designed to balance worker flexibility with operational realities.
If passed, the change would represent one of the most significant modernisations of Australian workplace law in decades. It would align Australia with international trends recognising remote work as an element of fair and flexible employment, particularly for carers, older workers, and people with disabilities.
Beyond the Panic: A More Balanced Reality
Employer groups warning of “chaos” are, in many respects, repeating the same arguments raised decades ago about part-time work and parental leave. Each time, predictions of mass disruption gave way to adaptation and improved workplace inclusion. The same is likely to occur with remote work.
Leading workplace lawyers advising corporate clients have described the reaction to the Chandler ruling as overblown, noting that compliance simply requires better communication and documentation — not wholesale transformation.
From an employment-rights perspective, the real challenge lies not in allowing remote work, but in ensuring equality for those who do it. Employers must avoid sidelining remote employees from promotion, training, or project opportunities — a modern version of “out of sight, out of mind” discrimination.
A Human-Centred Shift
Remote work has become a lifeline for parents, carers, workers with disabilities, and those facing long commutes. It has also emerged as a safeguard for mental health and work-life balance. The Chandler decision underscores that such arrangements are not simply lifestyle choices but can be integral to an employee’s ability to participate fully and equally in the workforce.
This shift reflects broader human-rights principles — the right to equal opportunity, the right to family life, and the right to participate in employment on fair terms. Properly managed, flexible work policies advance these values while strengthening workplace culture and retention.
The Path Ahead
For employees, the message is clear: requests for flexible or remote work must be made formally, supported by clear reasons and relevant evidence, such as caring responsibilities or health needs.
For employers, the lesson is equally straightforward: treat each request on its merits, consult meaningfully, and document decisions properly. A refusal without solid business justification risks not only a breach of the Fair Work Act but also reputational harm.
As the legal and cultural landscape evolves, the so-called “WFH chaos” looks more like a manageable transition towards fairness, inclusion, and modern workplace design. The real test for Australia’s employers will be whether they embrace flexibility as a shared opportunity rather than a compliance burden.
Read the full decision of Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115.
Case authorities
1. Naden v Catholic Schools Broken Bay Ltd as Trustee for the Catholic Schools Broken Bay Trust [2025] FWCFB 82
Court: Fair Work Commission, Full Bench
Relevance: Central authority on section 65A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – “requests for flexible working arrangements.”
Facts:
Ms Naden, a teacher, requested flexible working arrangements to manage family responsibilities. The employer refused her request without properly considering her individual circumstances or the consequences of refusal.
Held:
The Full Bench found that the employer failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of section 65A(3)—specifically, failing to:
genuinely try to reach an agreement, and
consider the consequences of refusal.
Because of these failures, the employer was not entitled to refuse the request. The Commission ordered that Ms Naden’s flexible work request be granted.
Key principle adopted in Chandler:
Each element of s.65A(3) is cumulative and mandatory. An employer cannot rely solely on “reasonable business grounds” if they have not genuinely consulted or considered the impact of refusal. Non-compliance invalidates the refusal itself.
Deputy President Roberts applied Naden directly in finding that Westpac failed to comply with s.65A(3)(a)–(c), thereby undermining its right to refuse Ms Chandler’s request.
2. Louise v Metcash Trading Ltd [2025] FWC 2090
Court: Fair Work Commission (single member, Commissioner Sloan)
Relevance: Comparison authority for arbitration under section 65C.
Facts:
An employee requested flexible work arrangements for health reasons. The employer refused, citing policy-based operational needs.
Held:
The Commission held that there were no reasonable business grounds for the refusal and ordered the employer to grant the arrangement. Commissioner Sloan noted the difference between Commission proceedings under s.65C (arbitration) and internal dispute procedures under enterprise agreements.
Key principle cited in Chandler:
When arbitrating under s.65C, the Commission has a broad discretion to balance fairness between the parties and is not automatically compelled to make an order consistent with its finding on “reasonable business grounds.” However, fairness cannot justify a refusal that is procedurally defective under s.65A.
Deputy President Roberts referred to Metcash to confirm the discretionary nature of s.65C powers but distinguished Chandler on the basis that Westpac’s non-compliance with s.65A went to its very entitlement to refuse.
3. Ridings v FedEx Express Australia Pty Ltd t/a FedEx [2024] FWCFB 473
Court: Fair Work Commission, Full Bench
Relevance: Guidance on the Commission’s discretion when arbitrating flexible work disputes under s.65C.
Facts:
An employee sought flexible hours for caring responsibilities. The employer refused, claiming operational needs.
Held:
The Full Bench confirmed that when arbitrating a flexible work dispute, the Commission has discretion to weigh fairness between employer and employee. Even where “reasonable business grounds” are not established, the Commission is not automatically required to grant the employee’s request.
Key principle adopted in Chandler:
The Commission must consider fairness between both parties under s.65C(2) when making orders. However, procedural failures under s.65A remain highly relevant and may justify an order granting the employee’s request.
Deputy President Roberts adopted FedEx to describe the breadth of s.65C(1)–(2) but reaffirmed that Westpac’s failure to consult and explain meant fairness still favoured Ms Chandler.
4. Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/a Opal Australia Paper v May [2025] FWCFB 224
Court: Fair Work Commission, Full Bench
Relevance: Interaction between flexible working rights and enterprise agreements; interpretation of s.65C(2A).
Facts:
Mr May sought flexible hours to accommodate carer duties. The employer refused, citing inconsistency with the applicable enterprise agreement (the Maryvale Agreement).
Held:
The Full Bench rejected the employer’s argument, holding that enterprise agreements cannot detrimentally affect or override the National Employment Standards (NES). The Commission may grant a flexible work request even if it appears inconsistent with an enterprise agreement, because s.55(1), s.56, and s.61(1) of the Fair Work Act ensure NES primacy.
Key principle adopted in Chandler:
An enterprise agreement cannot exclude, limit, or detrimentally affect an employee’s rights under the NES.
Section 65C(2A)(b) only prevents orders inconsistent with operative (valid) terms of an enterprise agreement—terms that contravene the NES have no effect.
Deputy President Roberts applied Paper Australia to dismiss Westpac’s claim that its enterprise agreement restricted the Commission’s capacity to make an order granting Ms Chandler’s remote work request.
5. Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/a Opal Australia Paper v May [2025] FWCFB 224 (again referenced)
Further application:
Deputy President Roberts cited paragraph [73] of Paper Australia, clarifying that s.65C(2A)(b) governs the Commission’s order-making power, not the scope of employee requests. The inconsistency test applies after considering the NES precedence clauses in ss.55, 56, and 61(1).
This reinforced that the Commission’s order granting Ms Chandler’s flexible work arrangement was not inconsistent with the Westpac Enterprise Agreement.
6. Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/a Opal Australia Paper v May [2025] FWCFB 224 (s.65A(3) interpretation)
Application within Chandler:
Deputy President Roberts also cited paragraph [39] of Paper Australia confirming that the four requirements in s.65A(3) are cumulative—each must be satisfied before an employer is entitled to refuse a request.
This supported the finding that Westpac’s refusal failed at multiple points and therefore could not stand.
7. Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 — Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
Relevance: Legislative context for s.65A–65C amendments.
Key extracts cited:
The memorandum clarified that the Commission cannot make an order inconsistent with a fair work instrument under s.65C(2A), but this does not allow enterprise agreements to displace NES entitlements.
Deputy President Roberts relied on this to interpret s.65C(2A) narrowly—limiting only order inconsistency, not the substantive NES rights themselves.
8. Other Cross-References
a. Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act 2022 (Cth)
— legislative reform introducing s.65B–65C dispute powers.
b. Paper Australia
distinguished the Westpac case by confirming that Westpac’s argument relied on a misreading of s.65C(2A)(b).
Summary Table of Authorities
Naden v Catholic Schools Broken Bay Ltd [2025] FWCFB 82
FWC Full Bench
Employer must comply with all four elements of s.65A(3) – failure to consult or consider consequences invalidates refusal.
Louise v Metcash Trading Ltd [2025] FWC 2090
FWC
Confirms discretionary power under s.65C to balance fairness; employer’s failure to show reasonable grounds justified order.
Ridings v FedEx Express Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FWCFB 473
FWC Full Bench
Clarified Commission’s broad discretion in arbitration under s.65C – fairness balancing.
Paper Australia Pty Ltd t/a Opal Australia Paper v May [2025] FWCFB 224
FWC Full Bench
Enterprise agreements cannot override NES rights; s.65C(2A)(b) applies only to operative terms; NES precedence affirmed.
Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
Federal Parliament
Contextual authority confirming limits on s.65C(2A); maintains NES hierarchy and primacy.
Overall Analytical Summary
Deputy President Roberts synthesised these authorities to conclude:
Procedural obligations under s.65A are substantive (following Naden).
Fairness under s.65C(2) permits discretion but cannot rescue a refusal invalidated by procedural failure (FedEx, Metcash).
Enterprise agreements cannot restrict NES entitlements (Paper Australia).
Consultation and consideration of consequences are prerequisites, not formalities (Naden).
Reasonable business grounds require evidence, not policy assertion.
Comments