She beat a 2-day office mandate: could you win all-remote work after 23 years and a 2-hour commute?

A long commute, hybrid rules and a quiet workplace revolt collide in a case now gripping Australian boardrooms this week.

An Australian retail bank employee has won a tribunal case granting her the right to work from home every day, after her employer tried to enforce a two‑days‑a‑week office rule. The decision, watched closely across finance and beyond, could reshape how managers handle flexible work requests.

What the commission decided

The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of Karlene Chandler, a part‑time employee in Westpac’s mortgage division who has worked at the bank for 23 years. Westpac had previously allowed remote work but reversed course, asking staff to attend a corporate office two days a week. Chandler lives outside Sydney and argued a round trip would take almost two hours, undermining her ability to do her job efficiently.

Commission finding: there were no reasonable grounds for Westpac to refuse the request for full‑time remote work.

The ruling highlighted an exchange in which a manager told Chandler that “working from home is no substitution for childcare”. The commission found this rationale did not justify denying her request, particularly given her established performance, her role’s suitability for remote delivery and the bank’s prior acceptance of home working.

Westpac said it is considering the decision. The bank maintains that its return‑to‑office guidelines aim to balance team collaboration with flexibility, a stance common across large employers adjusting post‑pandemic hybrid models.

Why this matters for you

Financial services in Australia have nudged office attendance upwards, yet hybrid arrangements remain entrenched at retail banks. Investment banks tend to demand more on‑site time, but the retail side has moved slower. This case lands at a delicate moment, signalling that blanket mandates may fail when an employee’s role, history and practical circumstances point to a workable remote alternative.

Key signal to employers: hybrid policies can’t override the obligation to assess individual flexible work requests on their merits.

The case at a glance

• Employer: Westpac, one of Australia’s largest banks.
• Employee: Karlene Chandler, part‑time, 23 years’ service in mortgages.
• Policy trigger: a two‑days‑in‑office requirement introduced after a period of approved remote work.
• Main factors: two‑hour commute, long tenure, proven remote capability, role suitability for home working.
• Outcome: full‑time work from home granted; the commission may allow an appeal.

The legal backdrop in brief

Australian workplace law gives eligible employees the right to request flexible work. Employers must genuinely consider the request, discuss alternatives and provide sound business reasons if they refuse. Where parties cannot agree, the Fair Work Commission can arbitrate and, where justified, require adjustments. The Chandler decision underlines that convenience or preference alone will not carry a refusal; employers need evidence of a genuine operational drawback.

What employers will now weigh

Managers across sectors will study how the commission balanced collaboration aims against individual circumstances. The decision points to a few principles that are likely to guide future disputes.

• Specificity beats generalities: policies that cite “culture” or “teamwork” need concrete explanations linked to a person’s role.
• Past practice matters: if an employee has delivered remotely for a long period, that track record carries weight.
• Distance and duty of care: long commutes can undermine productivity and wellbeing, particularly in part‑time roles.
• Alternatives count: staggered hours, adjusted days or measurable output targets should be discussed before a refusal.
• Documentation: a defensible decision rests on documented consultation and clear operational reasons.

How an employee can build a winning case

Chandler’s success did not rest on preference. It rested on evidence. If you are considering a similar request, structure it around measurable work outcomes and practical realities.

• Show your delivery: cite targets met, error rates, service response times and customer satisfaction achieved from home.
• Explain role fit: outline how mortgage processing, underwriting, analysis or client support can be performed securely off‑site.
• Quantify the commute: time, cost and impact on part‑time hours or caring responsibilities.
• Address risks: specify how you manage data security, call quality, system access and health and safety at home.
• Offer review points: propose trial periods, monthly metrics and regular on‑site meetings if needed.

Make the business case: link remote work to fewer interruptions, clearer service windows and stable output, not just convenience.

What this could change next

This ruling will likely encourage more workers to press tailored requests rather than accept blanket office rules. HR teams may now refresh policies to include clearer criteria, role‑by‑role assessments and formal review gates. Senior leaders will still pursue in‑person time for training, onboarding and sensitive collaboration, but they may narrow mandatory days to roles that truly need them.

In banking, the split between investment and retail functions could sharpen. Client‑facing deal teams may keep higher in‑office expectations, while processing and service roles may lean more remote. For workers outside major cities, the decision opens room to shape careers without relocating or absorbing long, costly commutes.

Practical steps if you plan to ask

• Map your tasks: break your week into activities that require presence, that benefit from presence and that can be done anywhere.
• Gather proof: three to six months of performance metrics from home make a strong foundation.
• Pre‑empt concerns: list how you’ll handle data privacy, secure devices, ergonomics and incident reporting.
• Propose structure: set core hours, escalation paths, and a cadence for team stand‑ups and one‑to‑ones.
• Be flexible: if required, suggest quarterly in‑person days for training or relationship building.

Risks and trade‑offs to keep in view

Remote work can dull informal learning and visibility. Mentoring fades if not scheduled, and promotions may skew towards colleagues seen more often. To counter this, schedule regular video shadowing, book time with seniors and use written updates to show progress. Teams should rotate meeting times to share the burden across locations and time zones.

For employers, unmanaged dispersion can fragment culture and slow decisions. Clear documentation, slimmer meetings and explicit decision‑makers help. Security teams must maintain strong device management, multi‑factor authentication and clear protocols for handling confidential material in shared spaces at home.

A note on appeals and timing

The commission can allow appeals, and Westpac is weighing its options. Even so, the immediate message is plain: when an employee can perform effectively from home and a two‑hour commute saps efficiency, a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate may not survive scrutiny.

The bottom line for readers: policies set the tone, evidence wins the case.

If you want to run a quick self‑check

• Can you evidence equal or better output from home for at least three months?
• Does your role involve tasks that regulators, clients or systems require on site?
• Is your commute longer than 90 minutes a day and cutting into paid hours or care commitments?
• Have you proposed measurable targets and regular reviews to your manager?

Answer yes to the first and last questions, and no to role‑critical on‑site requirements, and you likely have a credible case. Add a well‑costed commute impact and a plan to safeguard data and wellbeing, and your request will look less like a preference and more like good operations management.