[2025] FWC 3115
Citation: [2025] FWC 3115
What happened
Karlene Chandler requested flexible working arrangements from her employer, Westpac Banking Corporation, to care for her children and manage school pick-ups and drop-offs. She initially proposed working from a Westpac branch in Bowral, but this was rejected. Chandler sought an order from the Fair Work Commission to grant her request or reflect her compromise position in an order. Westpac argued there were reasonable business grounds for refusing the request, citing the need for her to attend a corporate office and referencing the Westpac Group Enterprise Agreement. Chandler has been employed by Westpac since 2002 and previously worked remotely. Westpac's Hybrid Working Model requires employees to attend a corporate office two days a week.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found Westpac did not comply with the requirements of section 65A of the Fair Work Act 2009 when refusing Chandler’s flexible working arrangement request. Westpac failed to provide a timely response, adequate reasons for the refusal, and did not genuinely attempt to reach an agreement with Chandler. The Commission agreed with Chandler's submission that the shortcomings in the process meant Westpac was not entitled to refuse the request. The decision was based on the principles outlined in the Naden v. Catholic Schools Broken Bay Ltd case. The Commission did not grant a specific order, but indicated that Westpac was not entitled to refuse the request.
What it means for employers
Employers must strictly adhere to the requirements of section 65A of the Fair Work Act when responding to flexible working arrangement requests. This includes providing timely responses, detailed reasons for refusal, and genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employee. Failure to do so can invalidate the refusal and potentially require the employer to grant the request. Employers should review their flexible working policies and ensure they align with the Act’s requirements.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc3115.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
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 by AI 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 →