[2025] FWCFB 224
Citation: [2025] FWCFB 224
What happened
Anthony May, a long-term employee of Paper Australia, requested a flexible working arrangement to accommodate his parental responsibilities. He sought to alter his Thursday start and finish times. Paper Australia refused the request, citing clause 18.6 of their enterprise agreement, which requires union consultation for roster changes. Mr May referred the dispute to the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Yilmaz ordered Paper Australia to grant the request, finding that the enterprise agreement’s clause did not constitute reasonable business grounds for refusal. Paper Australia subsequently appealed this decision.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Full Bench granted Paper Australia permission to appeal Commissioner Yilmaz’s decision. The Full Bench dismissed the appeal. They found that the Commissioner did not err in her interpretation of the Fair Work Act and the interplay between the National Employment Standards and the enterprise agreement. The Full Bench noted that the enterprise agreement's clause regarding roster changes did not automatically constitute reasonable business grounds for refusing a flexible working arrangement request.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that simply citing an enterprise agreement’s provisions as ‘reasonable business grounds’ for refusing a flexible working arrangement request may not be sufficient. The Fair Work Act prioritises the National Employment Standards, and enterprise agreements cannot exclude or contradict them. Employers should carefully consider the specific circumstances and legal framework when assessing flexible working requests.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to request flexible working arrangements. An employer cannot automatically refuse a request based solely on an enterprise agreement's provisions. Employees should understand their rights under the National Employment Standards and the importance of these rights over enterprise agreement terms.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwcfb224.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 →