Employers have extensive obligations when responding to flexible work requests.

One Minute Summary

• This Fair Work Commission flexibility dispute decision makes it clear that looking after two young children is not conducive to undertaking a role that requires attention and accuracy.
• However, it leaves open the question of different home-based caring responsibilities while working a job that requires less attention to detail.
• The obligations on the employer, in how they respond to flexibility requests, are quite extensive particularly if the request cannot be accommodated. The best way for employers to respond to such requests is to assume that the Fair Work Commission will grant such a request unless the employer can show reasonable business grounds why this should not occur.
• Employers should consider alternative arrangements and take into account the impact of their final decision, if negative, on the employee and their family.

The Fair Work Commission has taken a very practical approach to a workplace flexibility dispute where Mr Gurung disputed his employer’s (Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd) denial for flexible work arrangements so he could be the primary carer of two young children while working at home.

The Gurung had been a full-time payroll officer with the company since 2020. Following COVID enforced restrictions, the employer put in place a ‘Hybrid Work Policy’ which included the statement that, ‘An employee whilst operating under a Hybrid Work Arrangement, cannot also be acting as the primary carer of a child who is primary school aged or younger, during business hours’. Following extended notice, the policy was discontinued effective from 1 January 2026 requiring employees to return to the workplace.

On 21 January 2026 Mr Gurung made a formal request to work from home on Mondays and Fridays. The flexibility request was permitted under the Fair Work Act as he had school age children. In his request he stated that on Mondays and Fridays he was the primary care giver of his children (aged 2 and 4) as they do not attend day care on those days.

In response to his request various discussions were initiated by the employer with a formal response provided to Mr Gurung on 20 February 2026 – outside the required 21 day employer response timeframe. The response rejected the request on three grounds. In summary they were:

• The position requires full attention and uninterrupted focus which would not be possible if simultaneously caring for two young children.
• Performance and accuracy concerns while previously working from home.
• Development areas had not progressed to a satisfactory level.

The response also outlined several alternatives which included working his full-time hours over 4 days, working less on Mondays and Fridays and longer hours on the other days, moving to part-time employment and working a shift arrangement including early mornings or late work. These alternatives were rejected as unacceptable by Mr Gurung.

The Commissioner undertook a detailed examination of the flexibility provisions and found that the employer had ticked all the required procedural boxes. The fact the formal employer response was outside the 21 days was noted but not addressed as a concern. (Presumably because there was clear evidence of genuine consideration of the request and the provision of alternatives.)

The Commissioner came down to the key point in whether the reasons provided by the employer in rejecting the request were reasonable business grounds under the Fair Work Act. The Commissioner closely examined the following key points:

• The Respondent’s (the employer) submissions that when processing time cards a high level of focus and attention to detail was critical to ensure the process was completed accurately and efficiently.
• The caring responsibilities for two young children who are not being cared for or entertained by someone else will impede the Applicant’s ability to devote his full attention to the role and work with uninterrupted focus.
• The performance concerns of the applicant with the employer providing evidence of his last performance review (prior to the flexibility request) where Mr Gurung was graded as ‘Partially Meets Expectations’.  Extracted comments included ‘more focus, care and time needs to be taken by Mr Gurung…’

Mr Gurung challenged the point that caring for two young children would have an impact on his ability to undertake his role stating this was an assumption rather than specific evidence from the employer and should therefore be rejected.

Commissioner Matheson concluded the employer had reasonable business grounds to reject the request and made the following comments:

‘I accept that a role involving payroll processing requires focus and attention to detail in order to minimise errors and ensure pay accuracy. While the Applicant suggests that the Respondent’s concerns rely on assumptions regarding caregiving responsibilities, I do not consider those assumptions to be misplaced….

 …based on the information before the Commission I do not consider that it is feasible for the Applicant to take on a role of primary carer of two children, aged two and four years, at the same time he is carrying out payroll duties in which uninterrupted focus is reasonably required. There is a very high risk of interruption while performing such work while caring for two very young children and I accept this gives rise to a real risk of error and inefficiency when performing an important and complex function.

Commentary

This decision is quite useful on one level showing the Commission taking a practical approach to reasonable business grounds. The Commission clearly accepted it was not possible to juggle a job which requires a high degree of attention and accuracy with caring for two young children.

However, consider the potential for a different decision in respect to:

• A role that does not have such a requirement for attention and accuracy while caring for young children.  
• School aged children who may be home on school holidays for extended periods.
• Adult caring duties requiring regular attention to their needs.

One of the key Objects of the Fair Work Act is: ‘assisting employees to balance their work and family responsibilities by providing for flexible working arrangements’.

It should be noted that there have been previous flexibility decisions in favour of the employee working from home where there is another person primarily responsible for caring and entertaining the children in the same location. How much does the employee become involved in the day to day routine?

A key aspect of this decision is the employer’s response in initiating a number of meetings with Mr Gurung, the consideration of alternatives hours of work arrangements and acknowledging the impact of the employer’s decision on Mr Gurung and his family.

The formal response to the employee was well considered and detailed in nature. This then became evidence during the Fair Work proceedings.

It’s becoming clear from Fair Work decisions in relation to flexibility disputes that employers are expected to look at such requests in a comprehensive manner and not simply reject any requests. The Commission will examine the employer’s actions and the reasonable business grounds very carefully before coming to a decision.

Employer’s seeking assistance with complex flexibility requests or other employee relations matters should contact Hunter Employee Relations for assistance.

Kind Regards

Michael Schmidt

M 0438 129 728

[email protected]

www.hunteremployeerelations.com.au

Guiding senior managers through complex employee relations issues

Sign up here to receive Hunter Employee Relations Update directly to your email inbox

Want to know more about our client services?

Want to know more about Hunter Employee Relations?