The nuanced conversation about workplace flexibility has only become more difficult, and small businesses will pay the price, DLPA CEO Karlie Cremin warns following Westpac’s ruling.
What happens: The Fair Work Commission ruled in October 2025 that Westpac Banking Corporation had no reasonable business grounds for refusing employee Karlene Chandler’s request to work remotely five days a week.
Why this is important: While the decision strengthens existing legal frameworks, workplace experts warn it highlights the crucial importance of rigorous documentation and genuine consultation when rejecting requests to work from home, especially for small businesses operating on tight margins.
Westpac’s recent flexible working ruling should worry every Australian employer, according to Karlie Cremin, CEO of DLPA (Dynamic Leadership Programs Australia) and Crestcom ANZ. But her concern is not about flexibility itself.
“What frustrates me most about the Westpac case is not the outcome itself, but that their weak defense has effectively shut down the nuanced conversation we so desperately need about workplace flexibility,” says Cremin.
The Fair Work Commission ruled in October 2025 that Westpac did not have reasonable business grounds when it refused part-time employee Karlene Chandler’s request to work from home full-time. The Commission concluded that Westpac’s evidence regarding the benefits of office attendance was general and insufficient to establish reasonable business grounds.
System-wide impact
Cremin, who works with organizations engaged in hybrid working arrangements, argues that individual productivity claims miss wider organizational implications.
“I constantly hear employees say, ‘I am much more productive at home.’ Even if that were true, and research shows that it is rarely the case, this claim only takes into account individual output. What about the system-wide impact?” she asks.
“While you may feel more productive in your home office, the broader organization almost always experiences friction. Communication lags. Spontaneous problem solving disappears. Knowledge transfer slows to a crawl.”
Vice-president Roberts acknowledged that Westpac accepted that it was not mandatory for an individual to hold a position to fulfill a particular work function, but the bank maintained that teams work together more effectively through face-to-face interaction. However, the Commission concluded that the evidence did not establish reasonable business grounds, particularly because Chandler’s team was structured in such a way that personal contact was not a normal part of their work.
Employment law experts say the case puts all Australian employers on notice that company policy alone cannot justify refusing flexible arrangements.
Recent research from DLPA with the Australian HR Institute found that remote or isolated working is the third most common cause of complaints about psychosocial risks in Australian workplaces.
Mutual flexibility
“True flexibility means that both parties, employer and employee, are equally flexible,” Cremin emphasizes. “The problems arise when that balance tips.”
She points out that rising unemployment and the increasing number of layoffs are increasing pressure on flexibility schemes. “As business needs change, a lack of clear agreements will hinder responsiveness. Workers will push back on perceived rights.”
Chandler, who had worked at Westpac since 2002, had an extensive history of remote working, including working remotely full-time and going to a company office for just one day a month at other times. The Commission was satisfied that team collaboration was unlikely to be adversely affected as the employee had consistently met performance expectations while working from home.
Two-tier workstations
“We see the greatest erosion in performance and the greatest increase in risk when the majority work in the office, while a small percentage operate remotely,” notes Cremin. “It creates a two-tiered system that causes resentment and communication breakdowns.”
Specific circumstances were central to the Westpac case. Chandler’s nearest corporate offices were about a two-hour commute from her hometown and her children’s school, where she was solely responsible for drop-offs and pick-ups. She initially applied for permission to work at a closer bank branch two days a week, which was approved but later reversed.
Documentation is important
“The Westpac ruling has made the way forward more difficult, but not impossible,” Cremin said. “Organizations must now be much more rigorous in documenting business needs and demonstrating genuine consultation. Small businesses in particular should seek proper legal advice before denying requests.”
The case underlines that the link between the employee’s circumstances and the requested flexibility must be explicit and well documented. The decision strengthens employers’ obligations to effectively respond to flexible working requests and to provide detailed, individualized justifications for refusals.
Cremin warns that employees must also recognize that flexibility is not one-sided. “It requires mutual adjustment, clear agreements and honest recognition of how individual agreements influence team performance.”
The debate reflects a broader societal shift in employment expectations. Research shows that hybrid working is increasingly empowering employees, with most white-collar CEOs believing in the long-term benefits. Nearly two-thirds of workers want work-anywhere models to remain, and 50 percent want the right to choose their workplace, according to 2024 research from Ecosystm.
“The conversation we need is not about whether flexibility should exist, but should exist,” Cremin concludes. “It’s about how we structure it fairly, document it properly and ensure it benefits both the sustainability of the business and the wellbeing of its employees. Westpac’s lazy legal strategy has made that conversation significantly more difficult, and small businesses and their employees will pay the price.”
For companies navigating these challenges, experts emphasize the importance of providing real, individualized assessments when denying flexibility, rather than relying solely on broad policy statements.
Related: What the Westpac WFH case means for SMEs dealing with flexible work requests
#real #problem #Westpac #ruling #DLPA #CEO #Karlie #Cremin