Mother of Sick Child Ordered to Return to Office has Huge WFH Win

The Fair Work Commission has rejected a return-to-office directive imposed on a Sydney mother who requested a flexible work arrangement. The employee had worked remotely for a decade when her employer required all regional staff to attend the office at least two days per week. The mandate would have forced the worker, who cares for a daughter with complex health conditions, to commute nearly three hours per day. The Commission ruled that the employer’s generic efficiency arguments lacked substance, ordering a compromise that requires the mother to attend the office only one day per fortnight.

In this article, we examine the events of this Fair Work flexible work arrangement dispute Laura Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we’ll look at why Fair Work approved a WFH arrangement for a Westpac employee and how the bank ignored its legal obligations.

 

Case summary: Laura Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026]

• Key employee argument: Her 11-person team was located interstate or overseas, making in-office attendance pointless. A three-hour daily commute would disrupt morning care for her daughter’s acute medical needs.
• Key employer argument: The two-day office mandate was vital for company culture, post-acquisition integration and face-to-face collaboration.
• FWC outcome: Rejected generic “culture” claims due to zero evidence of remote productivity loss. The Fair Work Commission ordered a compromise: permanent remote work with office attendance of one day per fortnight and a delayed 10:30am start.

 

 

Mum secures big flexible work arrangement win at Fair Work

Sydney-based Laura Kliffen started working as a software support specialist in 2016 with an entity that was later acquired by property technology multinational Reapit. Throughout her decade-long tenure, she had consistently worked from home on a part-time roster of four days per week. Ms. Kliffen was the primary caregiver for two young children, including a daughter diagnosed with severe anxiety and additional medical conditions. The process of dropping the child off at school presented significant challenges. A paediatrician said that it would produce “behaviours that are challenging to manage.”

At the time of the 2023 corporate acquisition, Reapit sent Ms. Kliffen a formal letter noting “for clarity and comfort” that the transfer of business “will not change the way we operate.” However, in early 2024, she observed that Reapit’s internal HR software recorded her primary workplace location as “office first_home second.” When Ms. Kliffen questioned this, HR assured her it was a data entry error and that they would update her details to reflect her WFH status.

 

Worker placed on PIP during protracted work-from-home dispute

Despite that assurance, Reapit later issued a regional directive requiring all local staff to attend its Sydney office at least two days per week. The company justified the move by citing a post-acquisition integration strategy designed to “prioritise” culture, team collaboration and training. Ms. Kliffen objected to the directive, submitting a flexible work arrangement request under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009. She proposed to Reapit that she remain working from home full-time. She also proposed an alternative; to attend the office once a fortnight on a Monday with a delayed morning start. This was to accommodate her family’s medical routines and her lengthy commute.

The flexible work dispute extended over several months, during which the parties cycled through various temporary trials. At one stage during this, Reapit placed Ms. Kliffen on a performance improvement plan. This came to an end in early 2025 with zero further action or disciplinary findings. Reapit ultimately refused the flexible work arrangement request, claiming that her office absence created operational inefficiencies and disrupted team equity. Reapit argued that allowing Ms. Kliffen to entirely work from home would make it impractical to manage the workplace arrangements of her colleagues fairly.

 

Why did the worker believe they should work from home?

Ms. Kliffen subsequently lodged a formal dispute under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009, challenging the reasonableness of Reapit’s refusal to the Fair Work Commission. Her primary arguments for maintaining her remote structure included:

• Her immediate team of 11 staff was dispersed across Manila, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and the Sunshine Coast.
• Multiple team members were already operating on fully remote contracts. This meant that her physical presence would not provide a tangible benefit to a team that primarily collaborated digitally.
• Forcing her to commute 45 kilometres each way to the Sydney office took up to an hour and a half per journey, severely impacting her domestic care routines.
• Her husband’s job as an engineer required him to be on-site before 6:30am. This left Ms. Kliffen with sole responsibility for morning school routines.

Meanwhile, Reapit argued to the Commission that it had a valid operational right to mandate office attendance to drive corporate cohesion during a major rebranding phase. The company contended that uniform compliance with office-attendance policies was necessary to ensure organisational consistency. It claimed that making an exception would hinder the collaborative environment required for an upcoming product launch.

 

Why did the Fair Work Commission grant the flexible work arrangement?

Ms. Kliffen’s flexible work arrangement dispute was determined by the Fair Work Commission in May 2026. In evaluating whether Reapit had reasonable business grounds to refuse the flexible arrangement, the Commission examined the employer’s internal documentation and contract history. The reasons why the Commission decided to uphold Ms. Kliffen’s remote working rights included:

• Ms. Kliffen’s historical transfer documentation explicitly reassured her that the corporate acquisition would not alter her daily operational habits.
• Her original employment contract recognised her residential home as a legitimate work location.
• Reapit’s assertions regarding team equity and collaboration were rejected. The employer had failed to produce specific evidence of any efficiency loss caused by Ms. Kliffen’s remote output.
• The Commission accepted that face to face interactions “may have benefits.” However, it noted that only a few of Ms. Kliffen’s team were based in Sydney.
• The Commission determined that two days per week in the office for a parent with two children, one with special needs, “would have significant impacts” for Ms. Kliffen.
• It was found that changes in Ms. Kliffen’s routine may make her daughter’s behavioural challenges “more acute.”
• It was noted that fairness within an organisation does not mean treating every employee identically. Rather, it requires an employer to extend additional support and flexibility to staff with family responsibilities.

 

Fair Work Commission offered compromised WFH solution

Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission determined that Reapit’s generic corporate objectives did not legally outweigh Ms. Kliffen’s significant caregiving obligations. However, it found that Reapit had reasonable business grounds to reject a completely remote structure. The Commission ruled that Ms. Kliffen must attend the office one day per fortnight. To allow her to drop her kids off at school, the Commission ruled that she could nominate the specific day and have a delayed start time of no later than 10:30am.

 

 

Westpac loses Fair Work WFH battle against long-serving employee

Another big work from home win for an employee was detailed in the Fair Work case Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025]. The Fair Work Commission ordered Westpac to grant a permanent remote work arrangement to a long-serving employee. The worker requested flexibility to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups for her two young children.

However, Westpac handled her request with a dismissive attitude, telling her that working from home was no substitution for childcare. Westpac claimed its corporate hybrid working model required all staff to be in the office two days per week. However, the Commission found the bank failed to provide evidence of any productivity loss and labeled its approach as procedurally deficient.

 

Case summary: Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025]

• Key employee argument: Her eight-person team was located across multiple states, meaning collaboration occurred entirely online. A four-hour commute would make school drop-offs and pick-ups for her young twins impossible.
• Key employer argument: The group-wide two-day office mandate was necessary to maintain structural policy consistency, foster team huddles and drive face-to-face collaboration.
• FWC outcome: Slammed the bank’s process as dismissive of a parent’s needs. The Fair Work Commission rejected Westpac’s collaboration claims due to lack of data showing any productivity loss. It ordered the bank to permanently grant her full-time remote working request.

 

Banking giant’s generic policy sinks flexible work defence

Karlene Chandler began working for Westpac in 2002, eventually joining the bank’s mortgage operations team as a part-time employee. She had successfully performed her role remotely for several years. In 2021, Ms. Chandler and her partner relocated to Wilton, some 80 kilometres south of Sydney. She told the Fair Work Commission that she required a predictable routine to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups for her six-year-old twins. Their school was located around 30 kilometres away from Ms. Chandler’s home.

Following a change in management, Westpac sought to enforce its group-wide hybrid working model. Implemented in late 2024, the model mandated that all employees attend a corporate office at least two days per week. For Ms. Chandler, the two nearest corporate offices were located in Sydney. Travelling to these offices would force her to spend two hours commuting from her children’s school. In response, Ms. Chandler lodged a flexible work arrangement request with Westpac in January 2025, exercising her right under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009. She sought to permanently work from home.

 

Westpac told worker WFH was ‘no substitution for childcare’

Westpac failed to respond to the request within the legally mandated 21-day timeframe. When a team leader finally conveyed the refusal in March 2025, no detailed reasons were provided. After Ms. Chandler asked for an explanation, a senior manager sent an email telling her that “working from home is no substitution for childcare.” He also said that her remote work arrangements could change at any time at Westpac’s discretion.

Ms. Chandler then proposed a compromise position where she would work out of the Westpac commercial branch in Bowral, around 40 kilometres from her home in Wilton, for two days a week. Westpac rejected this proposal without further negotiation. The bank insisted that physical attendance at a major corporate hub was necessary to foster collaboration, facilitate team huddles, and ensure meaningful engagement with business stakeholders.

 

Argued bank ignored the law process and her strong performance

Ms. Chandler subsequently lodged a flexible work arrangement dispute under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009, challenging the reasonableness of Westpac’s refusal. Her primary arguments for maintaining her remote structure included:

• Westpac had ignored its statutory obligations to genuinely discuss the request or consider the severe personal and family consequences of a blanket refusal.
• A two-day in-office requirement would cause such significant personal and financial disadvantage that it would effectively prevent her from continuing her role at Westpac.
• Her partner’s job required frequent travel, leaving her with the sole responsibility for managing the morning and afternoon school runs for their two six-year-old children.
• She acted in good faith by offering a compromise to work from the local Westpac commercial branch in Bowral for two days a week.
• Ms. Chandler had worked almost entirely from home since 2017 across different teams and had consistently met or exceeded all performance benchmarks.
• Her immediate team of eight colleagues was dispersed across Sydney, Tasmania, and South Australia, with team interactions taking place almost exclusively online.
• Forcing her into a physical office would not alter her daily routine or improve collaboration, as her colleagues would still be in different states.

Meanwhile, Westpac argued to the Commission that a permanent, full-time remote working arrangement would cause a significant loss in business efficiency and productivity. The bank maintained that physical presence at a centralised corporate hub was functionally necessary to assist with specific operational processes. Furthermore, Westpac argued that allowing a permanent exemption would undermine its ability to consistently enforce the group-wide hybrid working policy.

The bank also contended that Ms. Chandler’s long commute and childcare difficulties were the result of her own personal life choices. Namely, her decision to relocate to Wilton and send her children to a school 30 minutes away. Westpac noted that this decision was made without any guarantee of accommodation from itself.

 

Why did the Fair Work Commission grant the flexible work arrangement?

Ms. Chandler’s flexible work arrangement dispute was determined by the Fair Work Commission in October 2025. It found that Westpac had failed to meet multiple strict procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The reasons why the Commission decided to uphold her remote working rights included:

• Westpac did not engage in genuine discussions before issuing the refusal and failed to negotiate in good faith. Westpac had also provided a response that was dismissive of a parent’s genuine attempt to balance work and family life.
• The bank breached its legal obligations by failing to respond to the formal flexible work request within the mandated 21-day timeframe.
• The initial written refusal provided to Ms. Chandler was procedurally deficient as it lacked any substantive reasoning or explanation of the business grounds relied upon.
• Westpac gave no proper consideration to the severe personal and financial consequences that a total refusal would have on Ms. Chandler and her family.
• The claims regarding a potential loss of efficiency, productivity drops or negative customer service were entirely generalised.
• The bank failed to produce any concrete evidence to show that Ms. Chandler’s remote work had ever negatively impacted the business.
• Ms. Chandler had a long history of successfully performing her duties remotely with high-performance ratings.
• Westpac’s corporate policy, such as a hybrid working model, can’t be used as a blanket justification to override an employee’s statutory rights.

As a result of these findings, the Commission determined that Westpac lacked reasonable business grounds to refuse the WFH request. It therefore ordered the bank to permanently grant Ms. Chandler’s flexible working arrangement.

 

 

Flexible working arrangements FAQs

1. Can an employer refuse flexible working arrangements?

Yes, an employer can refuse a flexible working arrangement request. However, they can’t do so simply because they prefer all staff to be in the office. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an employer can only refuse a request on reasonable business grounds. This includes reasons like significant financial costs, a loss of efficiency or a negative impact on customer service.

The Fair Work Commission has made it clear that generic corporate policies do not automatically override an employee’s statutory rights. For example, in Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025], the bank tried to rely on its blanket hybrid policy to deny a remote work request. However, Westpac could not provide proof showing that Ms. Chandler’s working from home caused any drop in productivity. The Commission therefore determined the bank lacked reasonable business grounds and ordered them to grant the full-time remote arrangement.

2. What is the law around flexible working requests?

Section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 grants eligible employees (including parents of school-aged children, caregivers and those with a disability) the legal right to request flexible working arrangements. Once a formal request is made, the employer is legally required to provide a written response within 21 days. Before refusing a request, the employer must genuinely discuss the matter with the employee and attempt to find a compromise solution.

If the employer fails to follow this process, fails to respond on time or refuses the request without genuine business justification, the employee can lodge a formal dispute with the Fair Work Commission under section 65B. As seen in Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025], when an employer ignores these strict procedural steps and offers a dismissive response instead of a genuine negotiation, the Fair Work Commission will intervene to protect the worker’s statutory rights.

 

Read more: Remote Work Dismissals: Did These Workers take WFH Privileges too Far?

When your job ends, your rights don’t

We at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) work with employees nationwide on unfair dismissal, constructive resignation, general protections disputes, flexible working arrangements, and workplace rights matters. Employers fear us for our track record holding them to account, and we can help you get the outcomes you deserve.

Strict deadlines apply for Fair Work Commission applications, so contact us now on 1300 766 700 for your free and confidential initial consultation.