the Applicant v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2371
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a Payroll Officer at Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd, requested to work from home on Mondays and Fridays due to family responsibilities as the parent of two young children. He had previously worked from home during the COVID-19 pandemic and was approved for this arrangement in May 2024. The company subsequently discontinued its Hybrid Work Policy but verbally advised the Applicant of the change. In January 2026, he formally requested a permanent shift to working from home on Mondays and Fridays. Following discussions and an offer of alternative arrangements which were declined, Knauf Gypsum refused his request in writing citing performance concerns and business needs.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s request for flexible work arrangements met the formal requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The company had fulfilled its obligations by discussing the request, attempting to reach an agreement, and providing a written response with reasons for refusal and alternative options. While the written response was slightly late, it contained all required information. The Commission will now deal with the dispute by arbitration, considering whether the employer’s grounds for refusing the request were reasonable and whether an order should be made regarding the Applicant's working arrangements.
What it means for employers
Employers must genuinely consider employee requests for flexible work arrangements and provide clear, well-reasoned explanations if a request is refused. The response needs to include details of business grounds, how those grounds apply, alternative options, and relevant legislative information. Performance concerns should be addressed proactively before being used as justification for refusing a flexible working arrangement.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to formally request changes to their working arrangements due to family responsibilities. Employers must engage in discussions and provide written responses that comply with legal requirements, even if the request is ultimately refused. Employees should document all communications and keep records of any performance issues raised by their employer.
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/2026fwc2371.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 →