Employers Need to Think Twice Before Rejecting WFH Requests

Employment Law: 24 October 2025

Author: Bianca Mazzarella - Our People

Westpac’s rejection of a mother’s WFH request: A cautionary tale for all employers

It is undisputed that COVID-19 had numerous negative effects worldwide, however, it also demonstrated that some jobs can be worked from home with minimal (or no) impact on efficiency and performance.

The shift out of COVID-19 led many employers to direct that employees return to the office, sparking requests from employees for continued or greater flexibility.

The recent Chandler v Westpac Banking Corp [2025] decision serves as a reminder to employers that they must genuinely consider an employees request for flexible working arrangements and have genuine business grounds for refusing such a request.

Chandler v Wespac Banking Corp [2025] Decision

After working at the bank since 2002 and in a current part time capacity, an employee requested flexible working arrangements from Westpac.

The request was notably specific and stated that the employee needed  to work from home to enable her to drop off and pick up her two children from school, as her partner’s work arrangements had recently changed. The children’s school was in the opposite direction from the Westpac branch and would require a significant amount of travel from the school to the Westpac branch.

Westpac denied the employee’s request with senior management via email stating that “working from home is no substitute for childcare” and “your arrangements for working remotely may change at any time at Westpac’s discretion”.

Shortly after some negotiations via the employees union ensued, however, ultimately the bank stated that it would require the employee to work 2 days per week at a corporate office by January the following year.

Deputy President Roberts ultimately found that the bank did not have reasonable business grounds to refuse the request and was not satisfied that WFH would result in a significant loss of productivity, efficiency or customer experience.

Additional factors which aided the employee with her argument to continue to WFH included:

1. Her role did not require face to face contact;
2. Her team members were across 4 offices, in two different states;
3. Another team member had a WFH arrangement;
4. Team meetings were conducted online and training sessions were also available online;
5. Refusal of the WFH request would have a significant financial consequences for her; and
6. The employee had been successfully working remotely for a number of years with continued high performance ratings.

Tips for employers

1. Tailor employees job description, contract and WFH policies to ensure clarity around expectations at the outset for both parties;

2. Consider and assess (preferably with legal advice) if there is a genuine need for the employee to work remotely including due to carers needs, disability, age, domestic violence as opposed to convenience or preference of the employee;

3. Discuss with employees the request and try to reach genuine agreement (where possible);

4. Respond clearly in writing to the request within 21 days of the request;

5. Collate evidence and data to illustrate why in office attendance is required or the negative impact on team if WFH request is denied. It is not enough to say “we think it will have a negative impact” without supporting objective evidence; and

6. Consider each application on a case by case basis and seek advice where appropriate.

If you are an employer and require any advice regarding WFH requests by employees, Bianca Mazzarella, Principal of the Aitken Partners employment team can be contacted at bmazzarella@aitken.com.au