How a Westpac employee secured WFH arrangements (and how others can too)

A recent order of the Fair Work Commission that Westpac allow a staff member to work from home could set the tone for flexible working arrangements moving forward. Here, HR Leader breaks down the decision for employees caught in a similar position.

A staff member of Westpac’s mortgage operations team turned to the Fair Work Commission when the banking giant refused a flexible working arrangement that would enable her to care for and attend school pick-ups and drop-offs for her two young children.

In January, the employee, who has worked at Westpac since 2002, asked that she either work from home in Wilton South or, in the alternative, work from a local branch for two days per week, rather than attend the closest corporate office in Kogarah, Sydney.

Westpac refused both requests.

In the recent Fair Work decision, deputy president Thomas Roberts rejected Westpac’s argument that there was a “genuine and reasonable business need” for the employee to attend the Kogarah corporate office, or another corporate office, for at least two days per week.

Here’s why this and other submissions by Westpac fell short.

Cursory reasons, genuine compromise and policy

Under the Fair Work Act 2009, Westpac was required, but failed, to respond to the employee’s request within 21 days. The banking corporation also failed to provide clear reasons at the initial refusal, and its follow-up reasons were found to be “cursory at best”.

Thomas said there was “little doubt on the evidence” that Westpac did not engage with a number of the mandatory requirements in the act, such as making genuine attempts to reach an agreement.

Aside from a brief reference to the Westpac Group Enterprise Agreement 2025, there was no attempt to describe the particular business ground for the refusal or how those grounds applied.

Westpac submitted that non-compliance could be pursued in the ordinary way as a non-compliance issue, but was “not a matter of determination of the right of the employer to resist the applicant that’s been made to the commission here”.

While Westpac was correct that its failure may give rise to contravention proceedings, the current proceedings did not – and could not, given limitations on jurisdiction – involve an application for a civil penalty for alleged non-compliance on the employer’s part.

Thomas accepted the employee’s submission that the evidence shows refusal of the request “preceded any dialogue between the parties about the request”. It was only after the matter was escalated that Westpac began to discuss potential compromises.

Under the act, there should be consultation and a genuine but unsuccessful attempt to reach an agreement before the refusal.

“In any event, I am not satisfied the discussions that post-dated the refusal involved the employer genuinely trying to reach an agreement to accommodate the applicant’s circumstances,” Thomas said.

Thomas concluded Westpac did not meet the requirements under the act, and those failures should be taken into account in addition to consideration of whether there was a reasonable business ground.

Reasonable business grounds for refusal

Westpac relied substantially on its policy under the enterprise agreement, stressing that it provides a “mixture of in-person and remote work” that enables it to effectively manage a large workforce.

There was evidence about the benefits of “physical presence” in the office, including team “huddles” and activities, training sessions, and the use of “call boards” to relay important messages to staff.

However, the employee said collaboration was unlikely to be adversely affected in circumstances where her team was created in a way that “face-to-face contact was not an ordinary part of the job”.

While she conceded there were some benefits to in-person and face-to-face interactions, Westpac’s evidence was “generalised” and insufficient to establish reasonable business grounds.

For example, the team “huddles” can be and are conducted by Microsoft Teams, and training sessions are available online.

Further, Thomas said there was “no question” the employee’s work can be performed completely remotely, particularly in circumstances where she has “very successfully” done so for a number of years.

“The evidence confirms that both [the employee] and her team have performed at a very high level. Deadlines have been met or exceeded. [The employee’s] individual performance ratings are high.

“A loss of productivity or efficiency or a negative impact on customer service has not materialised as a consequence of existing remote working arrangements. It is unlikely in my view that a continuation of these arrangements would generate those sorts of results,” he said.

Having considered all the evidence and submissions, Thomas concluded there were no reasonable business grounds for the refusal.

Fairness between the parties

Westpac argued it would be unfair to make the flexible working arrangement orders because it would relieve the employee “of a requirement that applies to all other Westpac employees” and would undermine Westpac’s ability to insist on compliance.

It also submitted that the present issue only came about because of the employee’s “choices and preferences”, and so it would be unfair for Westpac’s position to “yield” simply because of that position.

In response, the employee said Westpac would suffer no real detriment, referring back to her team’s ability to work remotely.

While Thomas accepted that the present circumstances arose because of the employee’s personal circumstances, he again noted that the overwhelming majority of the team’s interactions occur online.

“Whilst I accept that Westpac may obtain some benefit from minimal levels of in-office attendance in [the employee’s] case, I also think that the consequences of not making an order are seriously prejudicial for the applicant and her family,” Thomas said.

“On balance, having considered the evidence in its totality, I am of the view that fairness considerations weigh in favour of the making of an order.”

Westpac agreement inconsistencies

Referring to a requirement, or clause 19, that hybrid employees work a mixture of time in the office and at home, Westpac submitted the order would be inconsistent with its enterprise agreement.

The employee said this argument ignored the operation of clause 20, which sets out that any request for a flexible working arrangement can be considered in line with national employment standards.

Thomas rejected Westpac’s argument that its enterprise agreement would restrict the commission’s power to make the order because there was “simply no inconsistency between the terms of the Westpac agreement and the order sought”.

“Clause 19 provides for a particular process by which employees can work away from Westpac’s office, either as a hybrid worker or a home-based worker. It is separate and in addition to the rights and obligations imposed on the parties by clause 20, which deals with flexible work arrangements,” Thomas said.

“[The employee] does not, by this application, seek to engage with the processes of clause 19. Any limitations that clause 19 imposes on hybrid or home-based workers do not apply to employees who have invoked the processes for a FWA that the act, and agreement itself, at clause 20, provides for.”

Westpac was ordered to grant the employee’s request for flexible working arrangements, effective from 20 October 2025.

The case: Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (C2025/5698)