Council had ‘reasonable grounds’ to deny WFH request, FWC finds

An applicant has not secured a partial working-from-home arrangement after her employer, a council visitor centre, shortened its operating hours due to safety concerns.

The matter was brought to the Fair Work Commission for a determination on whether the council has “reasonable business grounds” to refuse a request for a working-hour variation.

The applicant, a visitor services officer (VSO) for the Greater Shepparton City Council, had sought additional flexible work arrangements after the employer and respondent made adjustments to staffing and rostering hours.

The Australian Services Union (ASU) and the respondent had previously conducted negotiations after safety concerns were raised about a “nuisance” member of the public, resulting in the 2024 enterprise agreement.

During these negotiations, at which the applicant was present, the union proposed that Visitor Centre staff be rostered only during its operating hours, again due to safety concerns.

The respondent did not accept the staffing claim should be part of the proposed enterprise agreement, but it did undertake a safety review and conducted measures to improve security.

Further, the respondent undertook an internal safety review, consulted with staff on proposed changes, and conducted safety training.

The respondent considered staff hours align with those of the nearby art museum.

In April 2025, the applicant was offered a change in their Sunday hours from 9:00am to 5:15pm to 9:45am to 4:15pm to be consistent with proposed new Visitor Centre hours. The respondent also offered the lost time to be made up during the week.

According to email records from August 2025, the applicant was not satisfied with the proposal, eventually requesting that they work from home between 9:00am to 9:45 am and 4:15 to 5:15pm on Sundays.

This was rejected by the respondent on the basis that it was not suitable due to the nature of the work and required IT equipment, and that it did not resolve the proposed adjustment to other weekly hours.

The applicant then sought a risk assessment for the current hours of work, with the respondent’s OHS staff concluding that there were risks to working alone during the operating hours.

In a 17 September 2025 meeting, the applicant was informed they could choose between reducing or not reducing their hours, but that the adjustment was going to occur either way.

After the applicant noted that a consistent start would help mitigate issues with alleged sleep issues, it was proposed that a shorter lunch break could allow for a later start time.

On 22 September, the applicant selected the option for varied hours and a shorter lunch break over three days, resulting in a 21.45-hour working week.

According to FWC deputy president Kamal Farouque, the core dispute was not whether the employee was entitled to request a flexible work arrangement, nor was there an issue between the parties in relation to the request, but whether it was appropriate for the respondent to refuse the applicant’s request for partial working-from-home arrangements.

Farouque found that both reasons for refusing this request – the new Sunday hours in line with the revised Visitor Centre hours, and consistent hours for any two employees working at the same time due to new safety regulations – “constitute a reasonable business ground” as they relate to operational requirements and obligations.

Given that the “substantial purpose” of the Visitor Centre is to provide access to members of the public during opening hours, it was determined that the requirement for staff to be rostered during these times was reasonable.

In the same way, the threatening presence of the aforementioned “nuisance” individual and the new requirement for two employees to work the same hours also constituted reasonable grounds for refusal.

Despite the applicant’s argument that the early start could be conducted behind locked doors, Farouque reaffirmed that the refusal is reasonable because of the desire to align working hours with opening hours.

It was also noted that the applicant’s sleep issues and desire to care for a pet during lunch hours – which was brought up at the conclusion of the hearing – do not displace the respondent’s reasonable business grounds.

In this way, Farouque concluded “that the respondent has reasonable business grounds for refusing to grant the applicant her requested flexible work arrangement”.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.