25/05/2026
5 key takeaways from a recent Fair Work Commission flexibility decision:
- Employers need evidence, not assumptions, when arguing against work from home arrangements
- “Culture and cohesion” alone may not be enough to refuse flexibility requests
- Genuine caring responsibilities are receiving significant weight from the Commission
- Flexible work disputes are becoming increasingly nuanced and closely scrutinised
- Balanced and practical alternatives should be genuinely considered before refusing requests
The intersection between work responsibilities and personal lives continues to be a major focus in Fair Work Commission decisions, particularly following the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022, which strengthened employee rights around flexible work arrangements and expanded the Fair Work Commission’s powers to deal with disputes.
One recent example is Laura Kliffen v Reapit ANZ Pty Ltd, where the Commission supported a modified work from home arrangement for an employee with significant caring responsibilities.
The case is just one in a growing line of recent decisions showing how closely flexibility requests are now being scrutinised.
Importantly, the Commission reinforced that it is not enough for employers to simply argue that workplace culture, cohesion or collaboration may be impacted by remote work. Employers are increasingly expected to demonstrate clear operational impacts and genuinely consider balanced alternatives.
If your business needs support responding to flexible work requests or developing practical, compliant and fair workplace flexibility policies that work for your organisation and your team, reach out to Coast to Country HR.
