[2025] FWC 1976
Citation: [2025] FWC 1976
What happened
the Applicant, a Principle Technical Specialist at Intersystems Australia Pty Ltd, requested to work from home two days a week, citing caring responsibilities for his children and work-life balance. The company, which operates an online record system, had previously allowed hybrid work but changed its policy to require five days a week in the office, citing a customer service survey. The company offered the Applicant one day a week remote work, which he declined. the Applicant then applied to the Fair Work Commission to resolve the dispute.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s request for flexible work arrangements was not validly made under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. The decision hinged on the requirement for a clear connection between the request and the relevant circumstances (caring responsibilities) and the need to state reasons for the change. The Commission did not consider the reasonableness of the employer’s business grounds for refusal.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure that requests for flexible work arrangements clearly link to the circumstances outlined in the Fair Work Act (e.g., childcare responsibilities). Simply offering an alternative arrangement does not automatically validate a request. Employers should be prepared to demonstrate a clear nexus between the request and the stated reasons.
What it means for employees
Employees requesting flexible work arrangements must clearly explain how the request relates to a qualifying circumstance, such as caring responsibilities. The reasons provided must directly connect the request to the relevant circumstances to ensure the request is validly made.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc1976.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →