[2025] FWC 317
Citation: [2025] FWC 317
What happened
Elizabeth Naden (Applicant), a teacher and Religious Education Coordinator at a Catholic school, sought a determination regarding her return to work from parental leave. She requested a part-time arrangement working three days a week. Catholic Schools Broken Bay Limited (Respondent), her employer, couldn't accommodate this request while she remained in her current role. The dispute arose under the Catholic Schools Broken Bay Enterprise Agreement 2023, which has since been replaced, but with similar relevant clauses. The matter was referred to the Fair Work Commission for dispute resolution under the Enterprise Agreement’s clause 41. A conference was held but failed to resolve the issue, leading to a request for arbitration.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission was set to determine whether the Respondent had fulfilled its obligations regarding the Applicant's flexible work request and if they had reasonable business grounds for refusal. However, the decision has been quashed by the Full Bench. The Commission considered the Applicant’s request, the Respondent’s objections, and relevant evidence. The Commission declined to admit a report from a university professor as it wasn't directly relevant to the specific circumstances of the dispute. The Applicant sought an order allowing her to return to work part-time. The Respondent argued the Applicant was attempting to exceed the scope of the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they thoroughly consider and document employee requests for flexible work arrangements, adhering to the National Employment Standards and any relevant enterprise agreements. Failing to properly consult and assess requests can lead to disputes and potential Fair Work Commission intervention. The case highlights the importance of focusing on the specific circumstances of each request and ensuring evidence presented is directly relevant.
What it means for employees
Employees seeking flexible work arrangements should understand their rights under the National Employment Standards and any applicable enterprise agreements. They should clearly articulate their request in writing and be prepared to provide supporting information. The case underscores the importance of understanding the scope of dispute resolution processes and the potential for arbitration.
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/2025fwc317.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 →