Key Decision: Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115

13th November 2025

 

By Joseph Kelly, Kelly Workplace Lawyers

 

Key Decision: Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115

 

In a significant decision issued by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), Deputy President Roberts ordered Westpac to grant Ms Chandler’s request for a flexible working arrangement (FWA) under s65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The decision reinforces employers’ obligations when responding to flexible-working requests and highlights the dual importance of procedural compliance and substantive business grounds for refusal.

 

Background

Ms Chandler had been a part-time employee in Westpac’s Mortgage Operations team since 2002. Her role is processing loans, distributing fees, handling enquiries in a team that was already dispersed across locations (Kogarah, Parramatta, Tasmania) and was capable of being performed remotely.

In January 2025, she formally requested to work remotely from her home in Wilton (south of Sydney) to enable her to undertake school-drop-offs and pickups for her two six-year-old children. Westpac refused the request in March 2025, citing its “Hybrid Working Model” which required attendance at a corporate office at least two days per week.

Ms Chandler proposed a compromise which included working from a nearby branch (Bowral) for two days a week instead of commuting to Sydney, however this alternative was also rejected.

 

The FWC’s Findings

Procedural failures:

The Commission found that Westpac failed to meet the procedural requirements under s65A of the Act:

• The employer did not respond in writing within the required 21 days following the request.

   

• Westpac did not engage in genuine discussion with Ms Chandler about alternate arrangements or negotiate in good faith.

   

• The consequences of refusal for the employee (her caring responsibilities, commuting burden, impact on family life) were insufficiently considered.

   

• The refusal letter furnished “cursory” reasons rather than reasoned, evidence-based business grounds.

   

Substantive reasons lacking

On the substantive question of whether Westpac had “reasonable business grounds” to refuse the request:

• Westpac relied on generic business-concerns: loss of productivity/efficiency, negative customer-service impact, the need for face-to-face collaboration.

   

• The Commission found these reasons were not supported by the evidence as Ms Chandler’s role had been successfully performed remotely for several years, her team was already geographically dispersed, and there was no indication of adverse outcomes from remote work.

   

• The Commission rejected the argument that enterprise-agreement terms or internal policy (requiring 2 days office attendance) could trump the employee’s statutory request rights.

 

Practical Take-aways for Employers and Employees

1. Statutory request rights apply: Under s65 of the Act, eligible employees (e.g., carers of school-aged children) can request FWAs. Employer refusal is permissible only if the process in s65A is followed and there are genuine business grounds.

    

2. Process matters: A refusal based on manager discretion or policy alone, without documented discussion, negotiation or reasoned business-analysis, is high risk.

    

3. Policy does not mean automatic refusal: Merely relying on a hybrid-work policy does not satisfy the “reasonable business grounds” test. The business must show how the employee’s role or team is detrimentally affected by the proposed arrangement.

    

4. Employee-specific evidence: The nature of the employee’s role, history of performance, actual work-locations of the team, previous remote-work success, and commuting/caring burden are relevant. In Chandler, the employee’s long service, strong performance, and team geography weighed heavily.

    

5. Implications for “return to office” mandates: The decision signals caution for employers pushing uniform office-attendance mandates when parts of the workforce have demonstrably been working remotely with no harm.

    

6. Documentation is key: Employers should ensure they keep records of discussions, performance data, business-impact assessments, and consideration of the employee’s personal circumstances.

 

Why This Decision Matters

The Chandler decision is timely and illustrative of a broader shift in Australian employment law toward recognising flexible work not simply as a convenience but as a right for eligible employees, provided the statutory process is properly engaged. Although it does not establish a general automatic right to remote-work, it underscores that an employer’s refusal must be carefully justified in fact and procedure.

For employment law practitioners and HR professionals, the decision provides a current benchmark for handling FWA requests, particularly in hybrid/remote-work contexts. It reinforces that the Act’s protections are active, and that demographic shifts (e.g., remote schooling, carer responsibilities, regional commuting burdens) cannot be ignored in flexible work assessments.

 

Recommendations for Practice

For employers:

• Update and review remote/hybrid-work policies to ensure alignment with the Act’s framework (not create blanket prohibitions).

   

• Train managers on the s 65A process: written response within 21 days, genuine discussion, documented negotiation, consideration of consequences for the employee, clear reasons for refusal.

   

• For any refusal, ensure business grounds are specific to the employee’s role/team and supported by factual evidence (e.g., data on productivity, service levels, in-office tasks that cannot be done remotely).

   

• Consider whether alternate arrangements (e.g., closer branch attendance, partial remote days) are feasible — refusal may be less defensible if the employer dismisses compromise options without assessment.

   

For employees (and their advisers):

• If eligible under s 65 (e.g., carer for a school‐aged child), submit a clear written request that sets out the change sought and the reasons.

   

• Maintain records of past performance, remote-work history, and any logistical/caring burdens.

   

• If refusal occurs, check whether the employer followed procedure (21-day response, consultation, written reasons) and whether business grounds were demonstrably sound — if not, consider bringing the matter to the FWC under s 65B.

   

Conclusion

The Chandler v Westpac decision marks an important reference point in flexible-work jurisprudence. It demonstrates that procedural rigour and evidence-based reasoning are not optional when dealing with FWA requests under the Act. Employers must treat such requests as legitimate dialogue, not perfunctory checklist tasks. And for eligible employees, it reinforces that seeking flexibility is a protected right — provided the correct process is followed and the request is grounded in their personal circumstances.

Employment law firms advising clients on flexible-work obligations should highlight this decision as a cautionary reminder: both managers and employees must engage seriously with the statutory regime if they wish to navigate flexible-work arrangements effectively.