A Sydney father's bid to work from home two days a week has been rejected by the Fair Work Commission, in a case that could have legal ramifications for Aussies forced back into the office.
Paul Collins, a long-serving tech specialist at global software firm Intersystems, requested to continue working remotely on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
This followed the company's decision to end its COVID-era remote work arrangements in February and require all staff to return to the office full-time.
In his request, the specialist said he wanted to work from home for better work-life balance and to help care for his eight- and ten-year-old kids, a responsibility he shares with his wife, who also works at Intersystems.
While the employer denied the request, it offered a one-day-a-week compromise, which Mr Collins rejected, before the matter escalated to the Commission.
But the Fair Work Commission wasn't convinced.
In a decisive ruling, Deputy President Lyndall Dean said a 'personal preference' for remote work simply wasn't enough.
'His written request merely expressed a preference to continue with a pre-existing pattern of remote work and failed to articulate how working from home two days per week specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities.'
The Fair Work Commission has been accused of being overly focussed on verifying workers' eligibility for flexible work requests by imposing onerous evidentiary requirements.
Fair Work Commission deputy president Lyndall Dean denied a request from the father of two school aged children to work remotely two days a week on grounds of 'work‑life balance'.
The Commission found Collins failed to show a direct link between his request and any specific parental duties that required him to be home during core working hours.
'He conceded in cross-examination that he has no specific caring duties between the core working hours of 9am and 5.00pm, and that he and his wife are able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility including adjusted start and finish times,' she said.
Ms Dean ruled the specialist's written plea, which expressed a preference to continue with a pre‑existing pattern of remote work, failed to articulate how working from home specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities.
Monash University business law lecturer Amanda Selvarajah said the Fair Work Commission now seems to require parents to provide formal evidence of direct caregiving duties, such as personally supervising children, when applying for flexible work.
Broader parental responsibilities, like cooking meals or maintaining the household, are often dismissed as irrelevant.
'The FWC appears to have assumed that flexible work requests as a parent will only have a requisite nexus where the parent can prove they are engaging in exclusive, direct caregiving responsibilities,' Selvarajah said in her paper.
'This neglects other potential parental obligations such as preparing meals or cleaning the home.'
She warned the Commission's strict evidentiary standards are likely to disproportionately affect women, who tend to carry the bulk of caregiving responsibilities.
'This does not align with the Fair Work Act's objective of promoting gender equality,' she said.