As employers pull staff back to desks, a new ruling tests the boundaries of flexibility, long commutes, and family duties.
An Australian retail bank employee has secured the right to work remotely every day after challenging a mandatory office requirement at the Fair Work Commission. The closely watched decision arrived as finance firms try to coax workers into corporate hubs, reigniting tensions over productivity, care responsibilities and the cost of commuting.
What the tribunal decided
The Fair Work Commission found in favour of Karlene Chandler, a Westpac employee who works part-time in the bank’s mortgage team and has served for 23 years. Westpac had previously allowed her to work remotely, but shifted to a policy requiring staff to attend a corporate office two days a week. Chandler, who lives outside Sydney, argued the round trip would take nearly two hours.
The tribunal said there were no reasonable grounds for refusing Chandler’s request to work remotely on all days.
In its decision, the Commission noted that a manager had told Chandler that “working from home is no substitution for childcare”. The panel rejected that stance as a basis to deny her request. It concluded the bank’s position did not sufficiently account for her circumstances, nor for the feasibility of her role being performed from home.
Westpac said it is considering the ruling. A spokesperson stressed that its return-to-office approach aims to maintain meaningful collaboration across teams while still providing flexibility for home working.
The two-day office mandate was overturned for Chandler, reaffirming that flexibility requests must be assessed on their merits.
The case at a glance
| Employee | Karlene Chandler |
| Employer | Westpac |
| Role | Part-time, mortgage business |
| Tenure | 23 years |
| Commute | Nearly two hours round trip |
| Previous policy | Remote working allowed |
| New policy | Two office days a week |
| Outcome | Right to work from home every day |
| Next steps | Appeal may be permitted |
Why this matters for workers and bosses
The shift back to desks
Australia’s financial sector has been inching towards fuller office occupancy. Investment banks are largely back at their city headquarters, driven by trading floors and deal teams that rely on real-time collaboration. Retail banks, by contrast, have kept hybrid arrangements for many roles, reflecting customer service work that can be performed remotely with the right systems and supervision.
This ruling, while specific to one employee, challenges blanket attendance mandates. It invites employers to show clear business reasons for in-person requirements, particularly in roles where output is measurable and digital tools support performance.
Cost, commute and care
For workers living beyond capital city fringes, even two office days can mean long journeys, higher travel costs and disrupted caring patterns. Chandler’s travel time — nearly two hours — mirrors the reality for many households balancing school runs, elder care and part-time schedules. The Commission’s rejection of the “no substitution for childcare” remark underscores that flexible arrangements are not a perk for parents alone; they are a legitimate way to organise work when duties can be performed off-site.
Where tasks are portable and systems secure, the onus sits with employers to justify why presence is essential on specific days.
Can the decision be appealed?
The Commission allows appeals in suitable cases, so Westpac could yet challenge the ruling. Any appeal would likely focus on how “reasonable business grounds” are assessed and whether the bank’s collaboration needs outweigh an individual’s request. Until then, the decision stands as a reference point for similar disputes.
What Westpac says
The bank has framed its office policy around team cohesion. Its position reflects a wider belief in parts of corporate Australia that spontaneous conversations, training and mentoring suffer when teams are rarely co-located. Even so, the Commission has effectively said that such aims must be matched to the specifics of a role and the worker’s circumstances, not applied as a one-size-fits-all rule.
Collaboration matters, but policies need evidence and flexibility when roles can be performed productively from home.
How this could affect you
If you are weighing a request to work remotely, this case points to the value of detail. Spell out the tasks you perform, the systems you use, and how you will communicate and measure output. Show that service levels, data security and team contact will be maintained or improved. The stronger your evidence, the harder it is for an employer to say no without specific, demonstrable reasons.
- Quantify your role: deadlines met, customer interactions handled, files processed, errors reduced.
- Propose clear structures: core hours, response times, check-ins and measurable weekly goals.
- Address risks head-on: data security, ergonomics, and availability during key team moments.
- Offer compromises: occasional office days for training, onboarding or peak periods, if needed.
Wider ripples for the finance sector
Retail banks have been slower than investment banks to call staff back, largely because many retail functions can be digitised and monitored remotely. If similar claims succeed, businesses may need to segment jobs by task, not title, and prove when in-person attendance makes a material difference. That could push a more nuanced set of policies: defined in-office days for specific activities, combined with default remote work for task-based roles.
Useful context for flexible working in Australia
Australian employees can seek flexible work arrangements, including changes to hours and location, if they meet eligibility criteria. Employers must genuinely consider the request and respond in writing within a set timeframe. A refusal must be based on reasonable business grounds such as demonstrable cost, inefficiency, or impracticality tied to the role. The Commission can review disputes about how those grounds are applied.
Thinking about the numbers helps. If your commute is 90 minutes each way, two office days a week amount to six hours of unpaid travel time. Across a year of 48 working weeks, that is 288 hours — over seven full-time weeks. Factor in fuel or fares, childcare adjustments, and fatigue. If the role’s outcomes remain steady at home, those lost hours become a powerful argument for remote work.
A practical exercise: track a fortnight of tasks, output and response times from home and, if possible, from the office. Map which activities genuinely benefit from in-person presence and which do not. Use that evidence to propose a plan aligned to business needs. This approach respects team goals while showing how remote work can deliver consistent, measurable results.
Chandler could not immediately be reached through her solicitor. Westpac’s next move will be watched closely by employers and employees who are recalibrating the balance between presence and performance in the post-pandemic workplace.
Finally, a tribunal that recognizes outcomes over butt-in-seat metrics. A part‑time mortgage role with measurable output and secure systems is exactly the kind of work that doesn’t need a blanket two‑day mandate. Forcing a near two‑hour round trip after 23 years of service felt arbitrary. This will push orgnaisations to evidence why presence matters on specific days, not just repeat slogans about “collaboration.” Pragamtic, fair, and overdue.