WFH Australia: Bosses win major decision at Fair Work Commission after worker asked to work from home 100% of time

A company has won a court ruling against an employee who asked to work from home 100 percent of the time, in a first test of new workplace legislation.

The Fair Work Commission last Thursday turned down a father’s request to work exclusively from home for health and parenting reasons.

The tribunal found that salary packaging company Maxxia had “reasonable business grounds” to reject a Sydney case adviser’s plea to WFH 100 per cent of the time.

The verdict was seen as a major test for workers’ rights after Labor introduced new workplace laws called Secure Jobs Better Pay in June.

Workers can appeal bosses’ decisions to refuse flexible working – and this was the first such case to come before the Fair Work Commission.

In his submission, employee Charles Gregory argued that his preferred working arrangements for Maxxia were based on his parenting responsibilities and health reasons.

He takes care of one child every two weeks.

He also presented a letter from his doctor stating he was suffering from inflammatory bowel disease to the tribunal.

Mr Gregory argued that his condition required him to use the toilet urgently and frequently, which he could not easily access in the office.

He also argued that he needed to be home to care for his young school-aged child, whom he sought custody of every two weeks.

Commissioner Christopher Platt found that Maxxia had hybrid working guidelines in place for staff to split their work between the office and home.

According to the rules, staff must work in the office 40 percent of the time.

The Fair Work Commission recently ruled that payroll packaging company Maxxia had ‘reasonable business reasons’ for rejecting an employee’s request to work 100 percent remotely (stock image)

The commissioner found that the company made a genuine effort to accommodate Mr Gregory’s concerns, including moving his desk to the office bathroom.

Maxxia also offered to compromise by meeting Mr. Gregory’s childcare obligations and allowing him to work from home if he had his child for a week.

The tribunal was told that Mr Gregory’s productivity was 50 per cent, well below the 85 per cent target.

Mr. Gregory’s submission request to work 100 percent from home was denied.

“I accept that it is desirable that there is face-to-face contact within the human resources teams,” Commissioner Platt said.

‘Face-to-face presence would allow observation, interaction and (if necessary) coaching to improve Gregory’s productivity and provide him with more support.’

‘Gregory’s knowledge and experience could be more easily accessible to less experienced team members on a face-to-face basis.’

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO Andrew McKellar said the ruling reinforces the benefits of face-to-face working on workplace productivity.

The recent Fair Work Commission ruling recognizes the importance of working in the office (stock image)

“While we know that requests for flexible working arrangements need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is encouraging that the Fair Work Commission has recognized the importance of working in the office,” he told the newspaper. Australian Financial Statement.

Herbert Smith Freehill’s employment partner Natalie Gaspar believes it will tempt other employers to demand WFH staff return to the office.

“It demonstrates the committee’s willingness to accept that office time is sometimes necessary for productivity and training purposes,” she said.

“That’s consistent with what customers tell us: that team culture, under the right circumstances, can be a reasonable business reason to require office attendance; productivity, if they can show some data; but also the psychosocial aspects of supervision.’