Refused WFH in Victoria? The VEOHRC and VCAT Process

No. Under Victoria's new work-from-home right, a refusal would be handled by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) first — through conciliation — and then by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) if it stays unresolved. It would not go to the Fair Work Commission. This is the single most common misunderstanding about the scheme, so it is worth being blunt about it up front.

The reason is structural. The right is created by amending the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) — Victoria's anti-discrimination law — not the federal Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (premier.vic.gov.au, release dated 4 March 2026, and unchanged in the bill). Victoria cannot amend Commonwealth industrial law, so it is using its own equal-opportunity jurisdiction. Because the right lives in the equal-opportunity framework, a dispute about it is treated like a discrimination matter, which is why it routes through VEOHRC and VCAT rather than the federal industrial umpire.

Important status note: as at 19 July 2026 this is not yet law. The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 was introduced to the Victorian Parliament on 16 July 2026 and has passed the Assembly second reading, but it has not passed both houses and has not received Royal Assent. Treat everything below as the design in the bill, not enacted law — and re-check as it moves through the remaining stages. You can keep current on the broader scheme in our explainer at Victoria's work-from-home law for 2026.

The federal flexible-work right (Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.65) is a right to request. It is limited to defined categories — parents/carers of school-age-or-younger children, carers, employees with disability, employees aged 55+, people experiencing family or domestic violence (or living with someone who is), and pregnant employees — and generally requires 12 months' continuous service. The employer must respond in writing within 21 days and can refuse on "reasonable business grounds." Disputes go to the Fair Work Commission, which can conciliate and, since 2023, arbitrate.

Victoria's model is different in kind. It is a substantive entitlement to work from home two days per week (pro rata for part-time and casual employees) for any eligible employee whose role "can reasonably be performed from home" — not gated to the s.65 caring/age/disability categories, and (per legal commentary) not gated on 12 months' service. Because that entitlement sits in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), a refusal is dealt with through the same machinery that handles discrimination complaints: VEOHRC, then VCAT.

Two things to check before you rely on the entitlement. First, the bill excludes employees on probation, apprentices, trainees, interns and graduate program participants, along with regulated workers and regulated businesses under the Fair Work Act — if you are in one of those groups, the federal s.65 request right is your avenue, not this one. Second, the bill also requires employers to cover the reasonable costs of the arrangement, including essential hardware and software and secure access to the employer's information systems, so a cost or equipment dispute can sit alongside a refusal.

Before any external complaint, the practical first step is the same as for any workplace dispute: raise it internally and get the paper trail. No prescribed request form has been published, but a clear written request — and the employer's written response — will be the backbone of any later VEOHRC or VCAT matter.

Aim to capture, in writing:

• The arrangement you are asking for (for example, two WFH days a week, and which days if relevant — though whether the days are employee-elected or employer-directed is not yet settled).
• Why your role can reasonably be performed from home (the work you do, the tools you use, evidence it has worked remotely before).
• The employer's decision and, critically, their stated reasons for refusing.

Our Flexible Work Request tool can help you draft a clear, dated request. To sanity-check whether you are likely to be covered under the proposed Victorian scheme, use the Victorian WFH eligibility checker. Keep copies of everything — the request, the response, and any related emails or meeting notes.

If internal resolution fails, the announced pathway is to lodge a complaint with VEOHRC, which runs conciliation (confirmed by the Premier's release). Conciliation under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) is a voluntary, confidential process where a VEOHRC conciliator helps both sides try to reach a settlement — it is not a hearing, there is no judge, and the conciliator does not decide who is right.

In practice, equal-opportunity conciliation typically involves:

• Lodging a complaint with VEOHRC setting out what happened and what outcome you want.
• The employer being notified and given a chance to respond.
• A conciliation conference (often by phone or video) where both sides discuss the issue and possible resolutions — for example, agreeing to the WFH days, a trial period, or another arrangement.
• Confidentiality: what is said in conciliation is generally not able to be used against you later if the matter proceeds.

If conciliation produces an agreement, that resolves the matter. If it does not, the complaint can move to VCAT. Note that the exact procedural rules specific to the new WFH right have not been published — the description above reflects how VEOHRC conciliation works under the existing Act.

If VEOHRC conciliation does not resolve the dispute, the pathway is the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) (confirmed by the Premier's release and unchanged in the bill). VCAT is the body that can actually determine the matter — hear evidence, make findings, and issue binding orders. This is the equal-opportunity equivalent of a tribunal hearing, and it is deliberately not the Fair Work Commission.

The specific remedies VCAT could order for the new WFH right have not been settled. Drawing on the existing Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) machinery, commentators anticipate the kinds of remedies VCAT can already grant in equal-opportunity matters — but treat these as inference, not settled fact:

• An order requiring the employer to grant the WFH arrangement.
• Compensation.
• Possible adverse costs in some circumstances.

None of these remedies has been confirmed for the new WFH right specifically. The Government has promised guidance before 1 September 2026; until the bill completes its passage and that guidance is released, the precise remedies — and the grounds an employer can lawfully refuse on — remain unresolved.

Because a refusal would be assessed in the equal-opportunity framework, the evidence that matters is anything showing your role can reasonably be done from home and that the refusal was not genuinely justified. Start a file the moment you make the request. Useful evidence includes:

If you are unsure how the proposed scheme applies to your situation — for example whether part-time or regular casual work is covered, or how the small-business timing affects you — you can ask our AI workplace advisor, which is grounded in Australian workplace law and real decisions.

This is genuinely still unresolved — the lawful grounds for refusal, and the standard VCAT would apply to them, have not been settled. What can be said is what lawyers expect, and it should be read as expectation, not law.

Legal commentators (including Maddocks, Clayton Utz, Kennedys and HR Legal) anticipate a "reasonable business grounds"-style test, but describe it as a higher bar than the federal s.65 test, precisely because the right sits in the anti-discrimination framework rather than industrial law. On that expectation, a refusal based on mere preference, workplace culture, or a blanket return-to-office policy — without a genuine, role-specific operational justification — would be more likely to fail than under the federal scheme.

But to be clear: the specific grounds an employer can lawfully rely on, and the standard VCAT would apply, are not settled. Do not rely on a particular refusal ground being valid or invalid until the legislation passes and the test is clarified. We will update this guide as the bill progresses.

Where the scheme sits, and the dates that matter:

• 16 July 2026 — the Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 was introduced to the Victorian Parliament. It has since passed the Assembly second reading and remains before Parliament. It is not law until it passes both houses and receives Royal Assent.
• 1 September 2026 — intended start date for employers with 15 or more employees (premier.vic.gov.au).
• 1 July 2027 — workplaces with fewer than 15 employees have until this date to comply. This is a timing deferral, not an exemption; the Government has expressly ruled out a small-business exemption. (Whether the 15-employee threshold is headcount or full-time-equivalent is not yet confirmed.)

The Government quantifies the benefit as "$110 a week or $5,308 every year" (premier.vic.gov.au) — a figure attributed to the Premier's release, not an independent calculation. Victoria would be the first Australian jurisdiction to legislate a WFH right, which is true only once it is actually enacted.

The biggest uncertainty is legal, not procedural. For national-system (Fair Work) employees — which is most Victorian private-sector workers — there is a real question whether a state law creating a WFH entitlement is invalid under s.109 of the Constitution, given s.26 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is intended to exclude state industrial laws. The Government has deliberately housed the right in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) to reduce that risk (anti-discrimination laws can validly co-exist with the federal system), but business groups and commentators (via SmartCompany, ABLA, Kennedys; the Victorian Chamber, Property Council and HIA among the critics) expect a constitutional challenge if it passes as introduced. The right may not survive such a challenge for Fair Work-covered employees, and its interaction with awards and enterprise agreements is also untested. In short: even the VEOHRC→VCAT pathway described here depends on a bill that has not yet passed, and that may be contested if it does.