Return to the office: Can employees be directed back into the office?

Background

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has found that an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee on the basis that they refused to attend the office three days a week was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable in the recent case of Mr Richard Johnson v PaperCut Software Pty Ltd[1] (Johnson v PaperCut).

Richard Johnson (Mr Johnson) was employed by PaperCut Software Pty Ltd (PaperCut) in April 2022. Despite the Victorian Government removing its recommendations for employees to work from home in February 2022, at the time that Mr Johnson commenced his employment, many of PaperCut’s employees were still working from home under a hybrid work arrangement.

This arrangement was reflective of Mr Johnson’s employment agreement, which expressly stated that he was permitted to work from his personal residence. However, the employment agreement also stated that Mr Johnson “may be required to work at other locations from time to time”.

Similar to many other employers at the time, PaperCut started to re-evaluate its remote working arrangements to ensure that business requirements were met. Following a staff engagement and consultation process, in August 2023, PaperCut began to transition employees towards achieving three days in-office attendance by January 2025.

On 5 August 2022, PaperCut sought to vary Mr Johnson’s contract to list PaperCut’s office as the place of work. However, Mr Johnson declined this request and maintained that he was contractually entitled to work remotely. This remained the case until 19 December 2024, when PaperCut advised that Mr Johnson’s primary work location would shift to the office and that compliance was required.  PaperCut also warned that non‑compliance could lead to disciplinary action.

Despite this correspondence, Mr Johnson continued to work remotely. In response to this refusal, on 20 May 2025, PaperCut issued Mr Johnson with a final warning, stating that failure to attend the office three days a week could result in the termination of his employment. Mr Johnson again failed to comply, attending the office only one day a week.

On 19 June 2025, PaperCut dismissed Mr Johnson for failing to follow the hybrid work policy. Believing that the dismissal was unlawful, Mr Johnson filed an unfair dismissal application with the FWC, claiming that the direction received from PaperCut requiring in-office attendance was not lawful.

Decision of the Fair Work Commission

The FWC found the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable because PaperCut’s requirement that Mr Johnson attend the office three days a week was a lawful and reasonable direction, consistent with the employment agreement that was entered into. Crucially, the FWC determined that the wording included in the employment agreement which specified that Mr Johnson “may be required to work at other locations from time to time” confirmed that PaperCut’s direction was lawful and reasonable and therefore not unlawful, as alleged by Mr Johnson.

The FWC also determined that the employment agreement wording that Mr Johnson was “permitted to work from” home did not represent an entitlement to work from home. Mr Johnson therefore did not have an unconditional contractual right to work remotely.

Further, PaperCut’s hybrid policy was found to be reasonable and lawful as it was developed after consultation and slowly phased in.

Mr Johnson has since appealed the decision, claiming that the FWC mistakenly found that he lacked a contractual right to work from home.

Guidance for employers

As the tension between employees and employers over remote working arrangements continues to be a sensitive issue, the Johnson v PaperCut case provides the following valuable lessons for employers to consider:

1. Ensure employment agreements align with workplace policies: Employers should ensure that employment agreements are drafted to clearly align with, and expressly accommodate, changing workplace policies.
2. Take caution when issuing lawful and reasonable directions: Employers should ensure that any direction issued to employees is underpinned by a clearly articulated business rationale, informed consultation, clear communication and an appropriate transition process.
3. Maintain a strong evidentiary trail: Ensuring that lawful and reasonable processes are followed is only useful if the business can produce sufficient evidence after the events have occurred. Rigorous and simultaneous evidentiary processes are therefore critical.
4. Consultation with employees on policy changes: Consulting employees before updating any policies will assist in defending against any future claim that a direction flowing out of the new policy was unlawful or unreasonable.
5. Awareness of policies: Make sure your workforce is aware of workplace policies (and where to access them). This should be done in the onboarding process and at regular and ongoing intervals during the employment lifecycle.

If you found this insight article useful and you would like to subscribe to Gadens’ updates, click here.

Authored by:

George Haros, Partner
Luke Brusco, Lawyer
Chloe Colfer, Seasonal Clerk

[1][2026] FWC 178