Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), some employees have the right to request a flexible working arrangement, such as working from home. Employers are required to consider the employee’s request and may only refuse the request on 'reasonable business grounds'. Where an employee’s request is denied by their employer, they may challenge that refusal in the Fair Work Commission (FWC), with decisions turning on whether there were reasonable business grounds.

What constitutes reasonable business grounds depends on the facts, however, two recent decisions handed down by the FWC offer important guidance on what constitutes reasonable business grounds.

The two decisions this article discusses are:

1. Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2371 (Gurung)
2. Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1766 (Kliffen).

Gurung

Background

The applicant in Gurung commenced full-time employment as a payroll officer during the coronavirus pandemic, initially working remotely before transitioning to a hybrid arrangement of working from home on Monday and Friday. Following the employer’s direction that all employees return to the office from January 2026, the applicant requested to continue working from home on Mondays and Fridays due to his role as the primary carer of his two young children, noting that his children did not attend daycare on those days and his wife had a pregnancy-related medical condition that limited her ability to assist.

The employer refused the request on three grounds:

FWC decision

Commissioner Matheson held that the employer’s refusal of the employee’s request was on reasonable business grounds, observing that the applicant’s caring responsibilities had contributed to employer’s documented performance concerns and accepted that payroll processing requires focus and attention to detail to minimise errors. Relevantly, the Commissioner noted that caring for two young children, aged two and four, creates a “very high risk of interruption” and “a real risk of error and inefficiency when performing an important and complex function.”

Kliffen

Background

In Kliffen, a part-time support specialist was directed to attend the office two days per week as part of a post-acquisition integration initiative. The applicant had requested to work from home, citing caring responsibilities for two children aged four and seven (one with special needs who required additional support around school drop offs). Over 18 months, various arrangements were trialled, but the employer ultimately sought to return the applicant to working in the office two days per week.

The applicant was a high performing remote working administrative employee, in a team of 11 employees with hybrid or remote arrangements in Sydney, Brisbane and Manilla, whose role required client and team interactions via telephone, email and live chat.

The employer refused the applicant’s request to work remotely, citing the need to:

1. prioritise culture, team cohesion, training and support across all teams and all offices
2. address employee disengagement
3. prevent significant loss in efficiency through the applicant working fully remotely
4. apply fair and consistent working practices to all employees.

FWC decision

Commissioner Matheson accepted that the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse an exclusive work-from-home arrangement, acknowledging the legitimate objectives of a post-acquisition business in fostering culture and cohesion and recognising the benefits of in-person collaboration and training. However, the Commissioner found it "unclear" what tangible impact the applicant’s office presence would have on those objectives, given her team was already geographically dispersed and she had been working remotely for several years.

The Commissioner held that while an employer may desire consistent working practices, “individual employees may confront differing circumstances and some of those circumstances attract rights under the [FW] Act”. Balancing the interests of both parties, the Commissioner ordered the applicant to attend the office once per fortnight on a day of her choosing, with a flexible start time of no later than 10:30am to accommodate her school drop-off obligations and with any shortfall in ordinary hours to be made up across the remainder of the fortnight.

Lessons for employers

The decisions from Gurung and Kliffen reinforce that flexible working requests will be assessed on their specific facts.

The Gurung case highlights that employers may be justified in refusing a work from home request where there is a clear evidentiary link between the proposed arrangement and genuine operational concerns, including an adverse impact on the employee’s ability to perform the inherent requirements of the role.

The Kliffen case illustrates that:

1. broad organisational objectives, such as culture, cohesion or engagement, may not be sufficient to justify a refusal, without specific evidence of how the employee’s attendance would advance those goals
2. an employee’s lengthy period of remote work without any identified performance concerns undermined the employer's argument that office attendance was now operationally necessary.

Employers that refuse an employee’s request to work from home should be prepared to explain with specificity how a requested arrangement would adversely affect business operations, including:

1. team performance
2. training
3. supervision
4. customer service
5. workplace culture.

General statements about the benefits of office attendance may not be sufficient, particularly where teams already operate in a dispersed or hybrid environment.

Victorian legislation

These decisions are also relevant in light of Victoria's new work from home laws, which will, from 1 September 2026, provide eligible Victorian employees with a right to work from home subject to a separate “reasonableness” test. Notably, Victoria’s new laws will not apply to employees eligible to make flexible working requests under the FW Act, creating the prospect of different rights and dispute resolution mechanisms applying to employees within the same workplace depending on their personal circumstances.

Employers may therefore find themselves navigating two pathways, with different eligibility criteria and assessment requirements depending on the source of an employee’s entitlement.

As awareness of workplace flexibility rights continues to increase, employers may see a greater volume of requests and a greater willingness among employees to challenge refusals.

If your business requires assistance with managing flexible working requests or ensuring it has sufficient policies and procedures to adequately respond to requests, please contact our team.