Have any questions? Call us: Carter Capner Law monitors workplace accidents throughout Australia to spotlight safety issues of concern to our clients and to demonstrate those situations in which they may have a right to an insurance or compensation recovery. We act for workers and contractors throughout Australia. Call today on 1300 529 529 or click here to reach Carter Capner Law.
Introduction
A Sydney mother has won a landmark ruling against Westpac after the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found the bank unlawfully refused her request to work from home to accommodate school drop-off and pick-up duties. The decision is expected to influence how employers handle flexible-work requests across Australia.
Background to the Case
Karlene Chandler, a long-serving Westpac employee of 23 years, lodged a formal request in January 2025 to work from home due to childcare obligations for her twin six-year-olds.
Living in Wilton, south-west of Sydney, Chandler faced a two-hour commute each way to the bank’s corporate offices in Kogarah. With her children’s school starting at 7:45 a.m. and finishing at 2:25 p.m., she was unable to meet both family and work commitments under her existing schedule.
When Westpac rejected her request in March — beyond the required 21-day response period — no reasons were provided. A later proposal to work part-time from the bank’s Bowral office was also refused.
Commission Findings
FWC Deputy President Thomas Roberts ruled in Chandler’s favour, determining Westpac failed to show any “reasonable business grounds” for denying the arrangement.
The Commission found Chandler’s daily duties — processing loan advances, distributing fees, and handling internal debt discharges — were “entirely capable of being performed remotely.”
Roberts said Chandler’s work record demonstrated reliability and productivity:
“Deadlines have been met or exceeded. There is no evidence that her performance was ever compromised by remote work.”
The decision criticised Westpac’s reliance on its internal policy stating that “working from home is no substitution for childcare.” Roberts concluded this policy must be read in conjunction with the National Employment Standards (NES), which guarantee employees the right to request flexible working arrangements.
Westpac’s Arguments Rejected
Westpac argued that granting Chandler’s request could “open the floodgates,” undermining its ability to enforce office-attendance requirements. It also suggested Chandler’s family could hire additional childcare or adjust her husband’s work commitments.
The FWC dismissed these arguments, finding they placed an unreasonable burden on the employee and her family:
“The evidence did not establish that the applicant’s request would have any adverse operational impact.”
The Commission formally ordered Westpac to approve Chandler’s flexible-work arrangement, noting that “it was unlikely the matter would be resolved otherwise.”
Legal and Workplace Implications
Employment law experts have described the decision as a potential precedent for employees seeking to balance caregiving responsibilities with hybrid work models. The ruling reinforces that flexible-work requests must be assessed on merit, not on blanket corporate policies.
It also highlights growing scrutiny of large employers that promote “flexibility” in recruitment marketing yet resist individual accommodations.
Company Response
Westpac said it would “consider the ruling,” maintaining its position that its hybrid model of two-to-three office days per week “strikes the right balance” between customer outcomes and staff collaboration.
A spokesperson stated:
“Our workplace policy is designed to help our people deliver the best outcomes for customers, no matter where they work.”
Conclusion
The Fair Work Commission’s decision underscores a shifting legal landscape for flexible-work arrangements in Australia. For Chandler, the outcome ends a months-long battle to remain both a dedicated employee and a present parent — and for many working parents nationwide, it may open the door to greater workplace flexibility.