the Applicant v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited
Citation: [2026] FWC 2720
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant, a Dispute Resolution Specialist at Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited (AFCA), requested to permanently work from home due to caring responsibilities for his child and spouse. AFCA initially approved this request temporarily but later refused the permanent arrangement, proposing a gradual return to the office. the Applicant appealed the decision, citing concerns about communication and alignment with company policy. He had worked at AFCA since 2019 and previously worked from home during lockdowns.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that AFCA had reasonable business grounds for refusing the Applicant’s request to work from home full-time. Deputy President Bell noted the employer considered the consequences of refusal, including the Applicant's family circumstances. The Commission accepted evidence that AFCA offered a graduated return to the office and attempted to accommodate the Applicant's caring commitments. While acknowledging the Applicant's concerns about face-to-face interaction and company policy alignment, the application under s 65C of the Fair Work Act was dismissed.
What it means for employers
Employers must genuinely consider employee requests for flexible work arrangements and have regard to the consequences of refusal. However, they are entitled to refuse a request if there are reasonable business grounds, such as maintaining team collaboration or adhering to company policy. Documenting discussions and offering alternative solutions, like a gradual return to office, is important.
What it means for employees
Employees can request flexible work arrangements based on caring responsibilities. Employers must respond appropriately and genuinely consider the requests. If an employee believes their employer has not properly considered their request or lacks reasonable grounds for refusal, they may apply to the Fair Work Commission.
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/2026fwc2720.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 →