Australian work from home rights have taken a blow after the Fair Work Commission found a Melbourne employee was fairly dismissed for refusing an in-office mandate. The worker refused to attend the office after numerous warnings, believing his contract gave him the “right” to work from home. However, the Commission ruled that he had misinterpreted the wording in his contract and was fairly sacked for refusing a lawful and reasonable direction.
In this article, we’ll look at the events of this unfair dismissal VIC case Mr. Richard Johnson v PaperCut Software Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we’ll look at another recent case of an SBS producer who alleged she experienced an unlawful termination of employment for refusing to come into the office on medical grounds.
Return to office standoff: Dismissed employee loses WFH rights battle
Credit: LinkedIn
Melbourne-based Richard Johnson began working for PaperCut Software as a product engineer in April 2022. One of the clauses of his employment contract, titled “Mobility”, stated that “the employee is permitted to work from their personal residence” in line with relevant PaperCut Software policy. It also noted that he may be required to work at other locations “from time to time.”
Another clause of his contract obligated Mr. Johnson to comply with reasonable and lawful directions and all policies, rules and regulations provided by PaperCut Software. At the time that he joined the company, the workplace landscape was shifting. In February 2022, the Victorian Government had officially removed its strong recommendation for employees to work from home. This triggered a broader movement towards more time in the office for Australian workers.
Employer tried to change WFH entitlements, then introduced in-office mandate
During his first few years in his role, Mr. Johnson largely worked from home. But his dispute with PaperCut Software about his work location began as early as August 2022. This was when the firm sought to vary his employment contract to specify the office as a primary place of employment, citing an “incorrect variation” in the original document. Mr. Johnson did not agree to this variation under the requirements of one of the clauses.
For the following two years, he continued to work primarily remotely, though he attended the office on an intermittent basis as required. During this period, PaperCut Software, which employed up to 500 staff, consulted with its staff and conducted trials to implement a “return to hybrid work” policy. In August 2023, the firm announced that the hybrid work policy would begin from January 2025. It required all staff to work in the office three days per week.
Employee defiantly worked from home amidst legal squabble
In December 2024, Mr. Johnson was told that his primary work location would change to the office effective 1 January 2025. He challenged this direction, arguing that his original contract granted him a remote work entitlement. Mr. Johnson then had a series of formal meetings with management throughout early 2025. He remained working from home during this time.
On 13 January 2025, PaperCut Software’s HR team told him that their legal advice supported the direction and required him to attend the office by 1 February 2025. Mr. Johnson countered with his own legal advice on 16 January 2025, which claimed the company was in breach of contract. Following a meeting on 7 February 2025, the parties agreed to let their legal representatives discuss the matter.
Dismissed for refusing to come into the office
Twenty days later, PaperCut Software sent a detailed letter reviewing the legal arguments and maintaining that its direction was both lawful and reasonable. The firm held a meeting with Mr. Johnson at the beginning of March 2025 about his specific transition plan. He explicitly refused to follow the proposed arrangements. This led to a final warning letter on 20 May 2025, which required him to attend the office three days per week over the subsequent three weeks.
Despite a further solicitor letter on 30 May 2025 and a written final warning on 11 June 2025, Mr. Johnson attended the office only once during this final period. His termination of employment was finalised during a meeting on 19 June 2025 and took effect the next day. Mr. Johnson subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Argued he had the ‘right’ to work from home, in-office direction was ‘arbitrary’
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Johnson argued that PaperCut Software did not have a valid reason to terminate his employment. He characterised the return-to-office direction as an unlawful violation of his established working conditions. Mr. Johnson argued that the mobility clause provided a “right” to work from home. He claimed that any requirement to work elsewhere could only be “ad hoc” or occasional, based on the phrase “time to time.”
Mr. Johnson argued that the in-office direction was not reasonable because it was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked “reasonable business grounds.” He stated that he had performed his role successfully for three years from home and that PaperCut Software had not justified how office attendance would enhance productivity. He also highlighted that during his recruitment, he was led to believe the role would not require regular office attendance. He maintained that his non-compliance was based on a “genuine belief” that he was legally entitled to work from his residence.
Mr. Johnson also noted that other employees were allowed to remain working remotely. He argued that PaperCut Software had more proportionate options, such as seeking a court declaration of contractual rights, rather than taking the “disproportionate” action of terminating his employment.
Employer maintained in-office direction was lawful and reasonable
PaperCut Software argued that Mr. Johnson’s contract, when read as a whole, did not provide an unconditional right to work from home. The firm claimed that the mobility clause operated by reference to company policy. As such, PaperCut Software maintained that the direction for Mr. Johnson to return to the office was lawful and reasonable. The company emphasised that he had been provided procedural fairness through a 16-month transition period and multiple formal warnings.
PaperCut Software argued that the hybrid work policy was soundly based on business needs and developed through consultation. It pointed out that Mr. Johnson had never formally requested a flexible work arrangement or identified any personal hardship that prevented his attendance. PaperCut Software contended that his persistent refusal to follow a clear and repeated direction made the continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
Fair Work: WFH was allowed, not a right
Mr. Johnson’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in January 2026. It found that PaperCut Software had a valid reason for the termination of employment. The Commission rejected Mr. Johnson’s interpretation of the mobility clause. It found the word “permitted” was a synonym for “allowed” and did not constitute a permanent “right” to work from home. The permission was conditional and “in line with relevant policy.” This meant that when the policy changed, the permission could be withdrawn. The in-office direction was therefore deemed lawful as it was within the scope of the contract and involved no illegality.
The Commission also found that the company had acted appropriately in terminating Mr. Johnon’s employment. It found that his refusal to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction was of sufficient gravity to justify the termination of employment. The Commission noted the extensive transition period and the numerous opportunities provided to Mr. Johnson to comply. The Commission said that an employer is not required to justify its business decisions to every employee to make a direction reasonable. It was noted that Mr. Johnson had been warned in “explicit,” “plain and clear terms” that his conduct would lead to termination.
Given these findings, the Commission ruled that his termination of employment had not been harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Mr. Johnson’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.
SBS producer loses unlawful termination fight for refusing office return
Just a month before the previous case, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia handed down a WFH judgement in the case Papaemanouil v Special Broadcasting Service Corporation [2025]. Efstathia Papaemanouil started working for the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) in June 2012. Working as a producer for the Greek Language Program, her responsibilities were centered at the broadcaster’s Federation Square studios in Melbourne’s CBD. Ms. Papaemanouil’s job was fundamentally tied to live broadcasting. She had to operate specialised equipment and direct collaboration with the technical team.
With the onset of COVID in March 2020, Ms. Papaemanouil shifted to a work from home arrangement. She continued performing her role, producing news bulletins and current affairs content remotely. Then, in March 2022, SBS management signaled that Greek program news segments would return to live, in-studio production. In response to the in-office mandate, Ms. Papaemanouil requested to continue a work from home arrangement “indefinitely.” She argued that it was necessary for her to work remotely as she had chronic autoimmune disease, chronic fatigue syndrome and mobility issues.
Injured while on overseas trip, gets doctor’s orders to WFH
SBS initially provided a 12-week extension to her WFH privileges. However, the broadcaster later classified her role as hybrid, maintaining that studio attendance was necessary for live segments. The situation grew more complex in late 2022 when Ms. Papaemanouil injured her knee while on holiday in Greece. Upon her return, she was hospitalised with a pulmonary embolism and pneumonia. This caused SBS to initiate an independent medical examination in January 2023. The doctor’s report suggested that her condition would likely remain unchanged without significant intervention.
The report also highlighted safety risks if she were to work from home indefinitely without proper oversight. Despite various attempts over 2023 to coordinate a return to the studio for at least one day per week, Ms. Papaemanouil’s personal GP continued to say she was “temporarily unable” to work in the office. Following a preliminary notice and an invitation for the employee to provide further evidence, SBS moved to the termination of employment on 10 April 2024. Ms. Papaemanouil subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim.
Alleged she was ‘manipulated’ and sacked due to her disability, right to WFH
In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Papaemanouil alleged SBS had engaged in unlawful termination and discrimination based on her physical disability. She also contended the broadcaster sacked her for exercising a workplace right, including the right to work from home. Ms. Papaemanouil told the Fair Work Commission that her successful performance during the pandemic proved that a permanent WFH arrangement was feasible. Ms. Papaemanouil alleged that the refusal to accommodate her remote work request constituted adverse action.
She also claimed that SBS staff had “manipulated” her into exhausting her long service and personal leave rather than advising her on how to make a workers’ compensation claim. Ms. Papaemanouil accused the broadcaster of “misrepresentation” regarding her medical reports. She argued to the Commission that SBS had withheld the results of her independent medical examination to prevent her from accessing “better, alternative treatments.” She also claimed that SBS failed to pay out her full entitlements upon her termination of employment.
SBS argued audio recordings from home office weren’t studio quality
SBS argued to the Fair Work Commission that Ms. Papaemanouil’s termination of employment was a decision based on the “inherent requirements” of the producer role. The broadcaster presented evidence that live broadcasting from home resulted in inferior audio quality due to data compression. A senior manager testified that the Federation Square studios were “multi-million dollar facilities” designed by acoustic designers. He argued that acoustics and sound recording at home “will never be as good as that in a studio or booth.”
SBS argued that it had shown a “great deal of care” in making adjustments for Ms. Papaemanouil. It maintained that its intentions were to “absolutely” have Ms. Papaemanouil return to the workplace in “whatever capacity we could at the time.” The broadcaster maintained that since the knee injury occurred during a private holiday, it did not qualify as a workplace injury under Comcare. It therefore argued that this rendered any “failure to advise” on workers’ compensation irrelevant.
Court said WFH was not feasible for producer role
Ms. Papaemanouil’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in December 2025. The court dismissed every aspect of her unlawful termination claim. It ruled that Ms. Papaemanouil had failed to establish any breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 by SBS. While her knee condition was recognised as a disability, the court said SBS had a valid defense for her termination of employment. This was because Ms. Papaemanouil could not fulfill the inherent requirements of her job.
The court said that her attendance at SBS’s Federation Square studio was an inherent requirement of her job. It also accepted that working from home was not a reasonable permanent adjustment given the technical demands of high-quality audio and the need for immediate collaboration for live news.
Fair Work general protections claim dismissed
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was also critical of Ms. Papaemanouil’s claim that she faced “coercion” from SBS management. It said that she used this label “liberally and indiscriminately.” The court found no evidence of “force or compulsion” for her to use her leave entitlements. It said that SBS’s suggestion to Ms. Papaemanouil to use her leave was a practical solution for an employee who had “advised that she was unable to safely attend the workplace.” The court accepted the sincerity of SBS management and the fact it had tried to support Ms. Papaemanouil.
It also found that SBS withholding the independent medical examination report was not adverse action. The court said Ms. Papaemanouil had no “contractual or other right” to receive a copy of the report and noted that SBS had already provided summaries to her and her GP. On the matter of underpayment, the court accepted that payslips provided as evidence by SBS proved that all annual and long service leave had been paid.
Given all these findings, the court ruled that all arguments presented in Ms. Papaemanouil’s Fair Work general protections claim were invalid. Her unlawful termination claim was therefore dismissed.
Know your workplace rights and act before time runs out
If you’ve been dismissed, forced to resign or treated unlawfully at work, it can be hard to know what to do next. A Whole New Approach (AWNA) helps employees across Australia take action via the Fair Work Commission. We can help you get reinstatement or compensation if you’ve faced unfair dismissal, general protections violations, sexual harassment, constructive dismissal or any other workplace rights violation..
Fair Work claims are time-critical, with most needing to be lodged within 21 days from the date your employment ends. Missing the deadline can mean losing your chance to take action. Reach out to us now on 1300 766 700 for a free and confidential initial conversation to get your claim started.
