Two-hour commute, 23 years’ service: mum wins remote work fight — will your job be next too?

A row over hybrid policies, childcare and long commutes has landed at Australia’s workplace tribunal, with banks watching closely.

Australia’s Fair Work Commission has handed down a decision that is already ricocheting through corporate corridors. A long-serving Westpac employee sought to keep working from home every day. Her case pitched practical realities against a policy push back to desks, and it tested new legal muscle around flexible work requests.

A landmark ruling with human stakes

Karlene Chandler, a part-time employee in Westpac’s mortgage business with 23 years of service, contested a requirement to attend a corporate office two days a week. She lives outside Sydney. Travelling to a city office would take almost two hours one way, according to the case filings.

The tribunal found Westpac did not have reasonable grounds to refuse Chandler’s request to work from home full-time.

The commission noted that Westpac had previously allowed Chandler to work remotely, before reversing that arrangement this year. A manager also told her that working from home was not a substitute for childcare, a position the commission said did not justify refusing her request.

Westpac said it is considering the decision. The bank pointed to policies designed, in its words, to ensure “meaningful collaboration within teams” while keeping some flexibility. The commission has avenues for appeal, so this ruling may face further scrutiny if the bank challenges it.

The bigger picture: hybrid norms under pressure

Australia’s financial sector has nudged employees back towards offices, but momentum remains uneven. Investment banks have typically insisted on more in-person days. Retail banks have moved more slowly, with hybrid models still common across call centres, operations and support teams.

The commission’s decision arrives amid recent changes to workplace law. Reforms bolstered the right to request flexible working and gave the tribunal clearer power to arbitrate disputes when employers and employees cannot agree. That shift means workplace policies now face a firmer legal test, not just internal discretion.

Policies that require set office days now need concrete, job-specific reasons if they override a workable remote pattern.

Case facts at a glance

Why the commission said no to a blanket office rule

The tribunal weighed the practical realities of Chandler’s role against the employer’s blanket requirement. The key questions: does the job require physical presence for performance, privacy or security; and do collaboration needs rise above what video, scheduled on-sites and digital tools can provide?

The decision indicates the bank did not present strong, role-specific evidence. General statements about collaboration often fail when an employee can demonstrate consistent performance from home. Previous acceptance of full-time remote work also counted. Once a pattern functions without issues, reversing it needs clear operational justification.

Performance history matters: if output holds steady from home, the burden shifts to the employer to show why office days are necessary.

What this could mean for your workplace

Expect a surge in formal flexible work requests, especially from workers with long commutes, caring responsibilities or specialised home setups. Managers will likely need to document concrete reasons for any refusal, linking them to the specific role, customer outcomes, regulatory demands or technology constraints.

Reasonable grounds employers often rely on

• Material impact on customer service, response times or risk management.
• Confidentiality or data-security requirements that cannot be met remotely.
• Tasks tethered to on-site equipment or physical processes.
• Disproportionate cost or impractical reorganisation to accommodate remote-only work.
• Evidence that team outcomes suffer and cannot be fixed by structured remote routines.

The commission will test those claims. It will ask for proof, not just preference. Employers who tailor arrangements to the role and the individual will fare better than those pushing one-size-fits-all mandates.

How workers can frame a stronger request

Employees can boost their case by linking their proposal to performance, customer outcomes and measurable routines. Think in terms managers can defend during a review or audit.

• Show data: response times, error rates, customer satisfaction and completed tasks from home.
• Propose guardrails: fixed core hours, on-call windows for urgent issues, and scheduled team rituals.
• Address security: encrypted devices, private workspace, and compliance with data policies.
• Offer flexibility: agree to occasional on-site days for training, audits or quarterly planning.
• Commit to visibility: clear calendars, status updates, and predictable availability.

The finance sector’s hybrid reality

Investment banking leans on rapid, co-located decision-making. Retail banking spans distributed operations. That split explains the sector’s patchy return. Customer-facing branch roles and certain risk functions remain in person. Many mortgage processing, lending support and back-office tasks continue to run remotely with few hiccups when targets and workflows are well defined.

Chandler’s case will make large employers stress-test which roles truly demand in-person time. Job design will need clear rationales. Expect more hybrid models that use fewer, more purposeful office days, or remote-first setups backed by quarterly on-site collaboration.

Money, time and the commute question

Commutes carry hidden costs for both sides. A near two-hour one-way trip adds four hours to a day in the office. That affects energy, care arrangements and availability for late calls with interstate or overseas teams. For employers, office mandates bring facility costs and harder recruitment outside city centres.

Here is a quick way to quantify it. If a worker spends 3.5 hours commuting across two office days weekly, that is roughly 168 hours a year based on 48 working weeks. That time could translate into training, deep work or customer follow-ups. When presented clearly, numbers like these often shape practical compromises.

Risks and safeguards to consider

• Isolation risk: schedule regular 1:1s and peer sessions to keep learning loops alive.
• Onboarding quality: invest in structured mentoring and documented playbooks.
• Cybersecurity: tighten device controls, logging and secure network access.
• Performance drift: set quarterly metrics and review outcomes, not hours.
• Equity: ensure remote staff receive the same stretch assignments and visibility.

What happens next

If Westpac appeals, the commission will rehear the key points. Even without an appeal, the decision will influence how Australian employers draft hybrid policies this year. The message is clear: role-based evidence beats general preference. Where a remote arrangement works and meets customer, security and productivity standards, blanket office rules will face a higher bar.

For managers, the safest path is to assess tasks, flows and risks, then publish criteria by role. For employees, the strongest case ties remote work to measurable performance, structured collaboration and secure practice. That is where the tribunal is placing the weight, and where the next round of workplace disputes will likely land.