[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.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.