Westpac Concedes as Aussie Mum Secures Full-Time Remote Work Rights

Westpac’s Decision to Abandon Legal Appeal Marks a Turning Point in Flexible Work Rights

Westpac has decided not to appeal a ruling by the Fair Work Commission that supported a Sydney mother’s request to work from home. The bank confirmed on Friday that it will not challenge the decision, which was in favor of Karlene Chandler, a long-serving employee with 23 years of service at the company. She is part of Westpac’s Sydney mortgage operations team and has been working part-time.

This decision represents a significant moment in the national conversation about flexible work rights and offers a rare victory for working parents who are trying to balance their careers with family responsibilities.

A Mother’s Struggle for Remote Work

Karlene Chandler, the mother of six-year-old twins, requested in January to work from her home in Wilton, located 80 kilometers south of Sydney. Her goal was to manage school pick-ups and drop-offs more effectively. Without this arrangement, she would have faced a two-hour daily commute, as her children’s school is half an hour in the opposite direction from Westpac’s Kogarah office.

Her self-employed partner works across Sydney and interstate, and does not have the capacity to assist with childcare. Initially, Westpac allowed her to work remotely some days but insisted she attend the Kogarah office at least two days a week. She proposed a compromise, suggesting she could work in-office days at a nearby branch in Bowral, but this offer was rejected.

When mediation failed, the dispute escalated to the Fair Work Commission, which ruled that Westpac must grant Ms. Chandler’s request. The commission noted that she had worked from home “very successfully” for years.

Expert Opinions on the Ruling

Workplace law expert Andrew Stewart, a professor of work and regulation at the Queensland University of Technology, described the decision as a “wake-up call” for employers attempting to force staff back into offices. He emphasized that simply asserting the need for in-office presence is insufficient. Employers must demonstrate valid reasons for such requirements and maintain consistency in their approach.

Stewart pointed out that sudden changes in policy, where employees were previously allowed to work from home but now required to be in the office, are difficult to justify legally.

Westpac’s Defense of Hybrid Work Policy

During the case, Westpac defended its hybrid work policy, which requires staff to attend corporate offices two days a week. The bank argued that this policy ensured collaboration and business performance, citing in-office practices like team huddles and training sessions as essential tools not available to remote workers.

While acknowledging that Ms. Chandler’s role could be done remotely, the bank claimed that full-time remote work would weaken team cohesion and undermine its authority to require other staff to attend in person. It also suggested that her long commute resulted from “life choices” made without company approval.

Commission’s Disagreement

Commission deputy president Thomas Roberts disagreed with Westpac’s stance. He stated that there was no question that Ms. Chandler’s work could be performed completely remotely. He highlighted that she had been working remotely for several years and doing so very successfully, meeting or exceeding deadlines consistently.

The ruling has been celebrated as a major win for working parents and a precedent for future flexible work disputes. Nicole McPherson, assistant national secretary of the Finance Sector Union, said the union is now helping more employees secure similar arrangements. She emphasized that the ruling sends a strong message to all employers: they must have genuine business grounds for refusing flexible work requests and meet every obligation under the Fair Work Act before saying no.

Under the Fair Work Act, parents of school-aged children and workers over 55 can seek flexible arrangements. The Commission stressed that the procedural steps outlined in Section 65A are not optional. Employers must properly engage with staff, respond in writing within the required timeframe, and explain any refusal.

Even if business grounds exist, failing to follow due process can invalidate a refusal, as Westpac discovered in this case.

Impact on Future Workplace Dynamics

Westpac acknowledged that certain tasks could technically be done remotely but maintained that overall team performance and cohesion were significantly better when employees had regular face-to-face interaction. It also argued that any Commission order allowing her to work remotely full-time would undermine its authority to require other workers to attend the office at least two days a week.

Despite these arguments, the commission’s decision has sparked a broader discussion about the future of flexible work and the rights of employees to work from home. As more cases like this emerge, the landscape of workplace policies may continue to evolve, reflecting the growing demand for flexibility and fairness in the modern workforce.