Fair Work Orders Employer to Grant Work from Home Arrangement

Australian workers now have the legal right to request a flexible work arrangement from their employer. And if they believe it was unfairly refused, they can appeal the decision through the Fair Work Commission.

The Fair Work Act 2009 states that employers are permitted to refuse a request for flexible work arrangements on reasonable business grounds. This can include excessive costs or the impracticality of adjusting other employees’ work arrangements. They can also refuse if there could be a significant loss in efficiency or productivity and negative impacts on customer service.

In this article, we look at a recent case of a father whose request to work an extra day from home per fortnight was knocked back by his employer. The Fair Work Commission, however, stepped in to ensure that his request was honoured.

We also look at another recent case of a teacher who requested to work part-time hours temporarily. The school rejected her request, and unlike the previous case, the Commission agreed that it was fair. 

Employer ordered to grant new father flexible work arrangement

The following relates to the flexible work arrangement dispute Kent Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd [2025]. Sydney-based Kent Aoyama began working full-time as an account manager for Frontier Logistics in May 2021. In July 2023, he and his wife had a child. Since that time, he was allowed to work from home two days per week. Around the same time, Frontier Logistics was acquired by FLSA Holdings, and the latter allowed him to continue working from home two days per week.

Up until August 2024, Mr. Aoyama’s wife had the work flexibility to take care of their child, with the help of nannies. However, she landed a new job with less flexibility, causing him to seek further work-from-home time from FLSA Holdings. Mr. Aoyama told the Fair Work Commission that he asked his manager if she “minded” how often he worked from home. She said that she did not mind, according to Mr. Aoyama.

 

Made formal flexible work arrangement request

A few weeks later, however, Mr. Aoyama was told by senior management that he would need to spend more time in the office. They told him that if he wanted more work from home time, he would need to make a formal flexible work arrangement request.

In late October 2024, Mr. Aoyama submitted a formal request for a flexible work arrangement under section 65 of the Fair Work Act. He said that he had done so as he and his wife did not want to place their daughter into childcare until she was two years old. 

In his request, Mr. Aoyama proposed a rotating schedule involving two to three days per week working from home. He noted that on those days, he would either have a nanny present or use “Bubbadesk,” a facility that offers shared working space for parents and on-site childcare. This arrangement would mean he would work an extra day remotely per fortnight.

He said that this arrangement would be for the “next nine months or so.” Mr. Aoyama acknowledged that his total working hours would remain unchanged. However, he said that there may be occasions where he would need to assist with tasks such as “changing nappies” or “putting the child down for naps.”

 

Request rejected following customer complaints

In early November 2024, FLSA Holdings received two complaints from a customer and supplier about Mr. Aoyama. He said that management informed him that the complaints concerned hearing “babies in the background” during calls. The complaints also spoke of a decline in Mr. Aoyama’s work performance. 

Later that month, FLSA Holdings rejected Mr. Aoyama’s flexible work arrangement request. The company cited several reasons, including the two complaints and concerns about his “responsiveness” to customers and their perception of the arrangement. It also had concerns about using Bubbadesk, saying that if he had to visit a customer, he would need to take his daughter with him.

 

Employer offered alternative arrangement

FLSA Holdings said it was “empathetic” to Mr. Aoyama’s situation and proposed an alternative flexible work arrangement. It said that he could work two days per week from the Bubbadesk facility in a trial that would last six months. Mr. Aoyama responded to this by contesting and seeking clarification on FLSA Holdings’ statements. He asked that his original flexible work arrangement be approved.

 

Sought Fair Work’s intervention

In its response, FLSA Holdings said that Mr. Aoyama’s main focus at work was to “[be] responsive to customers without distraction.” It reiterated that it would not approve his original request and asked him if he would like to proceed with the alternative arrangement. 

In December 2024, Mr. Aoyama lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute about requests for flexible work arrangements. He made this application according to his rights under section 65 of the Fair Work Act. In January 2025, Mr. Aoyama and his employer met for a conciliation, which proved unsuccessful. The matter was therefore escalated to a hearing adjudicated by the Fair Work Commission.

 

Employer pleads case to Fair Work

FLSA Holdings argued to the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Aoyama’s employment contract stated that he would “usually” work from the office. It also said that he needed to “devote his whole time and attention” to work duties. The company said that his need to change nappies and attend to his daughter would pose a “significant distraction.”

FLSA Holdings said that it would also have a “significant negative impact” on customers. The company described how under his current arrangement Mr. Aoyama was “often less responsive to clients.” It also raised concerns that approving the request might create a precedent for other employees.

 

Worker attacked employer’s arguments

Mr. Aoyama, on the other hand, argued that FLSA Holdings did not have reasonable business grounds to decline his flexible work arrangement request. He said that his employer had taken the terms of his employment contract “out of context.” Mr. Aoyama claimed that he had been meeting his KPIs under his current arrangement. 

He also argued that he had never been asked to attend a client site on short notice and that this situation was “unlikely” to occur in the future. He therefore deemed FLSA Holdings’ reservations about his ability to do this as unfair.

Mr. Aoyama also claimed that he had never heard complaints about his performance until after he submitted his request. He argued that his arrangement would be a “minor” adjustment for his employer but would make a “significant” difference for his family. 

 

Fair Work slammed employer’s lack of evidence

At the hearing, the Fair Work Commission examined whether the refusal was based on reasonable business grounds. It did not find FLSA Holdings’ argument “persuasive,” noting that it had not provided evidence to substantiate the claim of declining work performance. 

The complaints against Mr. Aoyama were also found not to be backed up by evidence. The Commission said that it only received “vague comments” allegedly made by a customer and supplier about child noises in the background.

 

Contract didn’t prevent worker from ‘changing his child’s nappies.’

The Fair Work Commission found fault with FSLA Holdings’ argument concerning Mr. Aoyama’s employment contract. It said that it was “misguided” to think that he had an obligation to give his whole time and attention to the company while working. It also considered the contract’s stipulation regarding the usual place of work to be “unremarkable.”

The Commission noted that the aim of the Fair Work Act’s flexible working provisions is to “accommodate” the individual circumstances of the employee. It said that it was a “stretch” to think that Mr. Aoyama’s employment contract would act as a “bar” to Mr. Aoyama “changing his child’s nappies.”

Fair Work granted flexible work arrangement

The Fair Work Commission took issue with FLSA Holdings’ inability to grant Mr. Aoyama an additional working from home day per week. It said that the company was not persuasive in arguing that an extra day at home would have “a material, if any, bearing” on his productivity or customer service. The Commission also said there was “no weight” to FLSA Holdings’ argument that granting the arrangement would create a precedent for other employees. 

The Fair Work Commission ultimately ordered FLSA Holdings to approve Mr. Aoyama’s flexible work arrangement as proposed. This would allow him to work from home two to three days per week on a rotating basis. This arrangement was ordered to remain in place until 31 July 2025, when Mr. Aoyama’s child is expected to commence formal childcare.

Read More: What Are Your Rights When Working From Home & Returning To The Office?

Fair Work rejects teacher’s flexible work arrangement

Another recent Fair Work Commission flexible work arrangement dispute is Elizabeth Naden v Catholic Schools Broken Bay Limited as Trustee for the Catholic Schools Broken Bay Trust [2025]. Sydney-based Elizabeth Naden began working for Catholic Schools Broken Bay in 2023. She worked as a Religious Education Coordinator full-time at Sacred Heart Primary School. 

In June 2024, Ms. Naden gave birth to a baby. She had started her parental leave at the end of May and was due to return to work in January 2025. In November 2024, she submitted a formal request to the school to work part-time upon her return from maternity leave.

Her flexible work arrangement would involve working Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays for the first two terms of 2025. She told the Fair Work Commission that she needed part-time hours as she was unable to secure childcare on the other days of the week. 

 

School denied flexible work arrangement

The school, however, declined Ms. Naden’s request. She was subsequently offered alternative arrangements. This included a job share position as a classroom teacher, working three days per week, for the first two terms of 2025. This position, however, would come with a 15 per cent reduction in salary.

Not happy with this proposal, in December 2024 Ms. Naden lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission to arbitrate on her flexible work arrangement dispute.

 

School cited disruption and cost

The school argued to the Fair Work Commission that the part-time arrangement could have a negative impact on student achievement and wellbeing. It would require other teachers to cover her classes, which could disrupt students’ overall educational outcomes.

Another concern raised by the school was the cost implications of the flexible work arrangement. It said that it would require additional resources, including hiring another teacher to cover classes. The school estimated that the total cost of accommodating the request would amount to $12,827.

This additional cost was attributed to the need to increase the hours of another teacher to cover for Ms. Naden. Furthermore, the school argued that there would be other financial implications associated with adjusting leadership responsibilities within the school. 

It was also argued that since Ms. Naden’s position was a leadership role, her arrangement could weaken the leadership structure and hinder the effective running of the school.

 

Fair Work sympathised with school’s concerns

In reviewing the dispute, the Fair Work Commission considered the reasons provided by the school for declining Ms. Naden’s request. It acknowledged that the school had valid concerns regarding the disruption to the continuity of teaching. It also accepted that Ms. Naden’s proposed arrangement could lead to increased workload for other staff.

The school’s financial concerns, including the cost of accommodating the flexible work request and the potential strain on resources, were also taken into account. The Commission recognised that the school was operating with a limited number of teachers. This made it more difficult to adjust staffing levels without incurring additional costs.

The Commission also noted the challenges posed by timetabling complexities in a small school. It recognised that adjusting staffing arrangements can be more difficult than in larger institutions with more flexible staffing options.

 

Fair Work granted alternative arrangement

The Fair Work Commission ultimately ruled that the school had the right to refuse Ms. Naden’s original flexible work arrangement. It found that the alternative arrangement proposed by the school was fair. The Commission concluded that she could return to work in the classroom teacher role, working three days per week for terms one and two. She could then return to her Religious Education Coordinator role full-time.

Reach out now to explore your options — or give us a call on 1300 766 700.

 

We can help you make a Fair Work claim

If you have had your flexible work arrangement denied or been unfairly dismissed, give our team a call today. We at A Whole New Approach have for the last 30 years helped Australian workers take action through the Fair Work Commission. We’re not lawyers — we’re Australia’s leading workplace advisors. We’ve helped thousands of employees with their workplace disputes and problems.

We handle a wide range of  industrial relations matters — from unfair dismissal and forced resignation to adverse actions and workplace investigations. With our experience, we can help you lodge a claim and set you up to take your employer on. We offer a no win, no fee service and help workers all across the country. Call us now on 1300 766 700 for a free and private discussion about your situation.