Case strikes balance between operational requirements and worker's needs
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a dispute over flexible working arrangements between a worker and their employer, a major delivery company.
The case highlighted the issues of balancing carer responsibilities with workplace attendance requirements.
This decision underscores the importance of clear communication, genuine consideration of employee circumstances, and the need for reasonable business grounds when refusing such requests.
The worker, employed as a clearance classifier since 2015, had a history of flexible working arrangements. Initially working full-time in the office, he transitioned to part-time work in 2019, reducing his hours to four days a week. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the worker began working entirely from home.
As pandemic restrictions eased, the employer implemented a hybrid work model, initially requiring office attendance for a minimum of two days per week, later increased to three days. The worker, citing carer responsibilities for his wife and children with disabilities, requested to continue working primarily from home.
The worker's circumstances were significant. He had two children with intellectual disabilities and autism, and his wife was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and showed signs of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. The worker provided medical documentation to support his request for flexible arrangements.
The employer initially agreed to a compromise of two days in the office and two days at home. However, tensions arose when the worker sought to work from home full-time, leading to a series of negotiations and ultimately, the FWC application.
The employer argued that in-person collaboration was essential for productivity and company culture. They stated:
"The Company is committed to in-person collaboration and interaction, knowledge sharing, training, support and culture-building. In your role as a classifier, you benefit from having in person discussions with colleagues on matters such as regulatory changes and problem shipments, engagement and interaction that does not occur over Microsoft Teams."
However, the FWC found that the employer failed to adequately explain how granting the worker's request would result in a significant loss of efficiency or productivity.
The decision highlighted that generic reasons for refusing flexible work requests are insufficient without specific evidence of detriment to the business.
The FWC considered both the worker's carer responsibilities and the employer's operational needs. While sympathetic to the worker's circumstances, the Commission noted that he had not fully cooperated with attempts to find a compromise.
The worker had not attended the office since September 2023, using annual leave and unpaid leave to avoid office attendance. This lack of cooperation made it difficult for the employer to assess the viability of different working arrangements.
The decision stated:
"If the Applicant demonstrated that he attempted the arrangement and it did not fit his circumstances, I could have considered more alternatives than the current arrangements that were proposed by [the employer]."
This emphasises the importance of employees engaging in good faith negotiations when seeking flexible arrangements.
Ultimately, the FWC ordered a compromise arrangement:
"[The worker] may work from home for 3 days a week. [He] is required to work at the office for 1 day a week."
The Commission also included provisions allowing the employer to request office attendance if the worker failed to comply with the arrangement or if there were performance concerns. This order was set for a three-month trial period, allowing both parties to assess its effectiveness.
This decision offers several key takeaways for HR professionals:
As the decision noted:
"Although the legislation does not limit what reasonable business grounds mean, the interpretation and wording of this provision seems to require the employer to demonstrate a likely detriment to the business if they wish to refuse a flexible working arrangement."
This emphasises the need for HR professionals to carefully document and justify decisions regarding flexible work requests.
The ruling also highlighted the ongoing nature of these arrangements:
"A flexible working arrangement order can be subject to review and should not be indefinite unless there are very good reasons to do so."
This suggests that HR teams should regularly review and reassess flexible working arrangements to ensure they continue to meet both employee and business needs.
The decision also highlights the importance of both employers and employees cooperating in good faith to find workable solutions.
