What makes for a successful flexible working arrangement request? The two Fair Work Commission cases we explore in this article will help you understand.
In the first case, the Commission provided a clear message about working from home rights; if you merely have a “preference” to do so, then your flexible working arrangement will be rejected.
In sharp contrast, another employee successfully argued her case by demonstrating that her request to work from home was a medical necessity tied to her daughter’s health. The Commission ruled in her favour, granting an exemption from her employer’s office mandate.
‘Preference’ to WFH not enough: Fair Work rejects flexible working arrangement
The following events took place in the Fair Work Commission case Paul Collins v Intersystems Australia Pty Ltd [2025]. Canberra-based Paul Collins began working for tech company Intersystems Australia full-time in late 2005. At the time of his flexible working arrangement request, he was part of an IT support team. The team provided technical assistance for an online record system called TrakCare, used by healthcare providers.
Mr. Collins had been working remotely two days per week since the Covid era. But in February 2025, Intersystems Australia told most of its staff that they needed to work in the office five days per week. This in-office mandate was the result of a 2024 survey of TrakCare users, with the goal of improving customer service.
Requested flexible working arrangement to care for kids
About a week prior to this mandate coming into effect, Mr. Collins submitted a formal request to continue his flexible working arrangement. He argued that he should be allowed to work from home two days per week because he had to care for his school-aged children. He also cited the need for work-life balance.
Intersystems Australia rejected his request but offered Mr. Collins the alternative of working from home one day per week. He didn’t accept this offer. Discussions continued between Mr. Collins and the company’s HR department. It was during these that he challenged Intersystems Australia’s assertion that it had reasonable business grounds for the refusal. Mr. Collins also raised concerns about the WFH arrangements offered to employees in another team.
Mr. Collins didn’t get anywhere with these discussions, however, so he brought the matter to the Fair Work Commission.
Took aim at employer’s reasons for denying WFH request
Mr. Collins represented himself at the Fair Work Commission. He argued that his performance and availability had not been negatively affected by his existing remote working arrangement, which had been in place for several years. Mr. Collins also took aim at Intersystems Australia’s reasons for denying his flexible working arrangement.
He said the company’s argument that five days in the office was needed to improve customer service was unsubstantiated. Mr. Collins also felt that his individual circumstances were not given adequate consideration. This was particularly the case given that employees in another team were still permitted to work remotely.
Meanwhile, Intersystems Australia argued to the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Collins had not established a sufficient link between his request for remote work and his parental caring responsibilities. The company said that when asked to provide more details about his responsibilities, Mr. Collins wrote “‘would like to retain the pattern that I’ve been on” since offices reopened after COVID. He provided no further reasons to support his request.
Intersystems Australia argued it had reasonable business grounds to deny work from home privileges. It cited a user survey that showed a 28% decline in customer satisfaction, which prompted management to reintroduce five days of in-office work. The company stated that physical presence in the office was crucial for facilitating information exchange, supporting mentoring and improving collaboration between departments. It argued that this would lead to faster decision-making and more efficient issue resolution for customers.
Company pointed out it offered alternative arrangements
This included that Mr. Collins could work shorter hours on Wednesdays and Thursdays and make up the time on other days. It had also offered for him to work from home for part of the day on those two days. Intersystems Australia said it was “unclear” why Mr. Collins can’t be in the office 9 to 5, particularly as he confirmed during cross-examination that he has no carer duties during this time.
Fair Work explains what a valid flexible working arrangement request looks like
The Fair Work Commission arranged a conciliation session that aimed to help Mr. Collins and Intersystems Australia come to a resolution. However, they didn’t reach an agreement, so the matter proceeded to a formal hearing in June 2025.
At the hearing, the Fair Work Commission highlighted the key requirements for a request to be valid. It said that the request must establish a clear ‘nexus’ between the employee’s desire for a change in working arrangements and a relevant circumstance. This includes having caring responsibilities for a child. Furthermore, the request must detail both the desired change and the reasons for it.
The Commission found that Mr. Collins’ request didn’t meet these requirements. His written request merely expressed a “preference” to continue a pre-existing pattern of remote work. Mr. Collins didn’t explain how this was specifically required to support his parental responsibilities.
Flexible working arrangement request unravelled at hearing
During cross-examination, the Fair Work Commission noted that Mr. Collins conceded that he doesn’t have specific caring duties between 9am to 5pm on weekdays. He admitted that he and his wife are able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups. This is because he has existing work flexibility that includes adjusted start and finish times. The Commission concluded that working from home two days a week was not necessary for him to meet his responsibilities.
The Commission also found that Intersystems Australia had made genuine attempts to engage with Mr. Collins’ request and offered suitable alternatives. It also noted that he didn’t provide a reason for rejecting their proposal. Given these findings, the Commission ruled that Mr. Collins’ request was not valid. It noted that even if the request had been valid, it still would have been rejected. This was due to the reasonable business grounds argued by Intersystems Australia.
Worker denied WFH to protect sick child wins big at Fair Work
Another recent flexible working request that was decided by the Fair Work Commission is Catherine Louise v Metcash Trading Ltd [2025]. Sydney-based Catherine Louise began working for Metcash Trading in July 2020 as a full-time employee. She had worked remotely since she joined the company. But in late 2024, Metcash Trading issued a back to office mandate for certain employees. This required them to work in the office a minimum of three days a week.
In October 2024, Ms. Louise formally requested an exemption from the policy. Her request was submitted on the grounds that her teenage daughter suffers from cystic fibrosis, a condition that makes her highly susceptible to respiratory infections. Ms. Louise’s request was aimed at minimising the risk of being exposed to pathogens in the workplace and subsequently bringing them into her home.
Rejected alternative flexible working arrangement
Metcash Trading discussed the request with Ms. Louise but ultimately refused her application for a full-time exemption. Instead, it offered a modified arrangement requiring her to attend the office two days a week. It also offered flexibility for additional days as needed. Ms. Louise did not accept this proposal. In late November 2024, she lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission to resolve the dispute. She sought an order to maintain her existing full-time remote working arrangement indefinitely.
Argued working from home was ‘medical necessity’
Ms. Louise argued to the Fair Work Commission that her request for an exemption was directly linked to her circumstances as a parent. She said that office environments were continuously exposed to “different pathogens.” Ms. Louise argued that working from home was a proven way to reduce infection risk. She contended that her request was based on a “medical necessity.” Ms. Louise said that accommodating it would allow her daughter to live as normal a life as possible, including attending school and participating in sports.
To support her case, Ms. Louise provided letters from a cystic fibrosis nurse consultant and a professor of respiratory medicine. Both of these healthcare professionals highlighted the importance of infection minimisation for cystic fibrosis patients. Ms. Louise also provided her performance reviews to demonstrate her continued productivity while working remotely.
Employer questioned link between worker’s role and carer responsibilities
Meanwhile, Metcash Trading argued to the Fair Work Commission that there wasn’t a sufficient link between Ms. Louise’s parental responsibilities and her requested flexible working arrangement. It said that refusing to attend an environment to reduce infection risk is “not providing care to another individual.” The company also claimed Ms. Louise’s actions were inconsistent with her stated reasons. It pointed out her attendance at work-related social functions and her children’s sporting events.
Metcash Trading also cited its own reasonable business grounds for its in-office mandate. This included the need to foster collaborative working, improve working relationships between colleagues and increase productivity. However, the company didn’t provide any evidence to substantiate these claims.
Employer’s anti-WFH arguments taken apart by Fair Work Commission
The Fair Work Commission arranged a conciliation between Ms. Louise and Metcash Trading, but this didn’t end in an agreement. So the matter proceeded to a formal hearing in July 2025. At the hearing, the Commission found that Ms. Louise’s circumstances met the criteria for a flexible working arrangement as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. This was based on the fact that she was a parent of a school-aged child.
The Commission rejected Metcash Trading’s argument that she needed to demonstrate that she provided “acute care” for her daughter. The Commission said that nothing in the Fair Work Act 2009 requires a parent to also be a carer.
Employer failed to grasp medical need for flexible work
On the question of whether the request had a sufficient link to her parental circumstances, the Fair Work Commission sided with Ms. Louise. It said that Metcash Trading failed to “grapple with the totality” of Ms. Louise’s case, which was focused on infection minimisation as a key part of her parental duties. It was found that her arguments were not “confected” and were supported by the medical evidence she provided.
The Commission also rejected Metcash Trading’s argument regarding its reasonable business grounds for refusal. It highlighted the company’s failure to provide any evidence to support the business reasons for the in-office mandate. The Commission said that there was no evidence that the mandate would achieve the objectives outlined by Metcash Trading. It also said that the company did not show any “regard” to the consequences of the refusal for Ms. Louise.
Flexible working arrangement approved
The Fair Work Commission was satisfied that the dispute couldn’t be resolved without an order and that making an order was fair to both parties. He granted Ms. Louise’s request to be exempt from Metcash Trading’s in-office mandate. This allowed her to continue her current full-time work from home arrangement. He also urged both parties to adopt a “constructive and pragmatic approach” to their ongoing relationship.
Continue Exploring: Fair Work Orders Employer to Grant Work from Home Arrangement
Have you been unfairly treated at work?
Our team at A Whole New Approach are Australia’s leading workplace representatives who are dedicated to protecting the rights of employees. For more than 30 years, we’ve represented workers in thousands of Fair Work Commission, from bullying, harassment and discrimination to redundancies, forced resignations and flexible working arrangement requests.
We understand how stressful workplace disputes can be. Our team can take on the burden of navigating the Fair Work system for you and help you get the remedy you deserve.
Call 1300 766 700 today to discuss your situation in a private, free initial consultation.
