Westpac Lost — Chandler Won Her WFH Case. Here's How

In Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation [2025] FWC 3115, the Fair Work Commission ordered Westpac to grant a senior operations officer two days a week of working from home. It's one of the most significant s.65 decisions since the 2023 amendments gave the Commission power to arbitrate flexible work disputes.

Ms Chandler had been working at Westpac for 11 years. She had two primary school-age children and was her household's main carer. From 2020 she'd been working three days a week from home under an informal arrangement, and her performance ratings over that period were consistently "exceeds expectations."

In mid-2024, Westpac issued a blanket return-to-office directive requiring all operations staff to work from the office at least four days a week. Ms Chandler submitted a written s.65 request for two days a week WFH, explaining her carer responsibilities and the fact that her role was already performed remotely without issue.

Westpac refused. Their rejection letter ran to four paragraphs of boilerplate language citing "team collaboration," "training and development" and "consistency across the operations group." No engagement with Ms Chandler's specific circumstances. No evidence that her particular role couldn't be performed from home. No alternative arrangements offered.

The Commission wasn't impressed. Deputy President Hampton found Westpac had failed to "genuinely consider" the request and had not established "reasonable business grounds" for refusal. He ordered the bank to grant two days a week WFH for 12 months, with a review point at 6 months.

Section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 gives eligible employees a right to request flexible working arrangements. Eligibility is broad: parents with school-age children, carers, employees with disabilities, workers over 55, victims of family and domestic violence, and pregnant employees.

Since the 6 June 2023 amendments, the law has teeth. Employers now have to:

• Discuss the request with the employee before responding
• Genuinely consider the request — not just apply a template
• Try to reach agreement about the change
• Respond in writing within 21 days
• If refusing, set out the reasonable business grounds in detail and explain why alternatives couldn't be agreed

An employer can only refuse on reasonable business grounds. And here's the bite — since 2023, if the employee disputes the refusal, they can take it to the Fair Work Commission, which can arbitrate the dispute and make a binding order. Before the amendments, the Commission could only conciliate. Now it can force an employer to grant the arrangement.

The shift is enormous and many employers still don't understand it. Refusing flexible work with a HR template is no longer a safe default.

Deputy President Hampton's reasoning in Chandler is essentially a checklist of HR department failures. If you're preparing a flexible work request or challenging a refusal, this is the playbook.

Failure 1: No individualised consideration. Westpac's refusal letter was recognisably a template. It didn't reference Ms Chandler's role, her 11-year track record, her remote work history, or her carer responsibilities. The Commission said genuine consideration "requires engagement with the particular employee's particular circumstances."

Failure 2: No evidence for the "business grounds". Westpac claimed team collaboration would suffer. But they produced no internal analysis, no data, no specific examples of collaboration failures during Ms Chandler's prior WFH period. Claims without evidence don't clear the reasonableness bar.

Failure 3: No attempt to agree an alternative. The Act requires employers to try to reach agreement. Westpac offered nothing. They went straight from "request received" to "request refused" with no middle ground discussion.

Failure 4: Inconsistency. Evidence showed other operations staff in similar roles had been granted hybrid arrangements. Differential treatment without a principled basis undermined the "business grounds" defence.

Failure 5: Performance was ignored. Ms Chandler's exceeds-expectations ratings during four years of partial WFH were directly relevant evidence that the arrangement worked. Westpac's refusal didn't even mention them.

If your employer's refusal letter falls into any of these buckets — and most do — you've got grounds to escalate.

Section 65A(5) sets out what counts as reasonable business grounds. It's an exhaustive list, not indicative. An employer can only refuse if one or more of these applies:

• The new arrangements would be too costly
• There's no capacity to change other employees' working arrangements to accommodate the request
• It would be impractical to change other employees' working arrangements or recruit new staff
• The new arrangements would be likely to result in a significant loss in efficiency or productivity
• The new arrangements would be likely to have a significant negative impact on customer service

Notice the word "significant" shows up repeatedly. Minor inconvenience, mild friction, or vague preference for in-person culture don't cut it. The employer has to show — with evidence — that the impact crosses a material threshold.

The Commission in Chandler also emphasised that "reasonable" is an objective standard. Westpac's subjective preference for four days in the office wasn't the question. The question was whether an impartial observer with the evidence would conclude the refusal was reasonable. They wouldn't.

One more critical point: the onus is on the employer to prove reasonable business grounds exist, not on the employee to disprove them. In any arbitration, the employer has to lead evidence. If they can't, they lose.

You don't need to cite the case by name in your request — but you should write your request in a way that forces genuine consideration and sets up a clean escalation path if you're refused.

Here's a template that mirrors the Chandler structure and leaves your employer with nowhere to hide behind boilerplate:

Template email: s.65 flexible work request

Subject: Request for flexible working arrangements under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009

Dear [Manager],

I'm writing to formally request a flexible working arrangement under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

My eligibility: I am eligible to make this request because [I am the parent/carer of a school-age child / I am a carer / I have a disability / I am over 55 / other ground]. I have been continuously employed by [employer] for [X years/months].

The arrangement I'm requesting: I am requesting to work from home [two days per week, preferably Tuesdays and Thursdays] commencing [date]. I am willing to discuss alternative days and to trial the arrangement for an initial review period.

Why I need the arrangement: [Specific, personal reason — e.g., my youngest child starts school this year and school pickup is not possible from the CBD on those days. A home-based arrangement would allow me to continue meeting my carer responsibilities without reducing my hours.]

Why the arrangement will work: [Evidence-based paragraph — e.g., I performed this role from home two days per week from 2021 to 2024 and my performance ratings during that period were consistently [X]. My role does not require daily in-person client contact. I can be fully available by Teams, phone and email during business hours.]

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this request before you respond formally. Under section 65A of the Fair Work Act, I understand a written response is required within 21 days, and any refusal must set out reasonable business grounds with reasons.

If the arrangement I've requested cannot be agreed in full, I'm open to discussing alternatives.

Thanks for considering this request.

[Name]

This template does four things: establishes eligibility, proposes a specific arrangement, supplies evidence it'll work, and signals you know the 21-day deadline and the reasonable business grounds test. It's a request that can't be dismissed with a template.

If you get a template rejection anyway, escalate. Use our workplace rights tools as a starting point and contact the Fair Work Commission. Disputes under s.65 can be lodged on a simple form and arbitration is free.

Chandler isn't alone. In Ridings v FedEx Express Australia [2024] FWC 1845, the Commission dealt with a logistics coordinator who'd been refused a WFH arrangement after the birth of her second child. FedEx cited "operational requirements" and the "nature of logistics coordination."

The Commission ordered three days a week WFH for 12 months. Deputy President Anderson found FedEx had "failed to distinguish between tasks genuinely requiring physical presence and tasks that did not" and noted the employer had not even attempted to audit which of Ms Ridings' duties could be performed remotely.

The two cases, read together, form a consistent test:

1. Is the request genuine and tied to a statutory eligibility ground? Both Ms Chandler and Ms Ridings were carers with school-age children. Both met s.65.
2. Did the employer engage with the specifics? Neither Westpac nor FedEx did.
3. Was there an evidence-based refusal? Neither produced real evidence of significant operational impact.
4. Were alternatives considered? Neither tried.
5. Did prior performance under similar arrangements support the request? Yes in both cases — and this was decisive.

If your request ticks items 1 and 5, and your employer fails on 2, 3 or 4, you've got a strong arbitration case. The Commission is now regularly ordering WFH arrangements where the employer's refusal was boilerplate. This is the new normal.

FAQs

Q: Do I have to be a parent to request flexible work?
A: No. Eligibility under s.65 includes carers, employees with disabilities, workers over 55, pregnant employees, and people experiencing family and domestic violence. Parents of school-age and younger children are just one category.

Q: Can my employer refuse because "the team needs to be together"?
A: Only if they can show with evidence that the absence would cause a significant loss in efficiency or productivity. Vague culture preferences aren't enough.

Q: How long does a Commission arbitration take?
A: Most s.65 disputes are resolved within 8-12 weeks of lodgement. Arbitration hearings are typically half a day. You don't need a lawyer.

Q: Can I be sacked for making a s.65 request?
A: No. Dismissal or adverse action in response to a s.65 request is a breach of the general protections under s.340 of the Fair Work Act. Penalties of up to $18,780 per contravention for individuals and $93,900 for companies.

Q: Does Chandler apply to fully remote requests, not just hybrid?
A: The reasoning applies, but fully remote requests are harder to win if the employer can show legitimate in-person requirements. Hybrid requests (2-3 days WFH) have the highest success rate at arbitration.