Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (2025)
The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (2025) has sent a strong reminder to employers: it’s not just what you decide about flexible work requests that matters — it’s how you handle them.
In this case, the Commission found in favour of an employee whose request to work from home, made due to her caregiving responsibilities, had been inadequately considered by her employer. The issue wasn’t that the bank had said no — it was that the process lacked genuine consultation.
The Background
Ms Chandler, a long-term employee, made a formal request to continue working from home part-time so she could care for her elderly parent. Westpac declined, citing operational needs and the importance of “team presence” in the office. However, the Commission found that the bank had failed to properly engage with the request — there had been little evidence of two-way dialogue, alternative options, or any real exploration of what might work for both sides.
As a result, the Commission ruled that the employer had not complied with its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly as amended by the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Act 2022, which strengthened the right to request flexible working arrangements.
The Legal Position
Under the Fair Work Act, certain employees — including those with caring responsibilities, disabilities, or parents of young children — have a right to request flexible work.
Employers can refuse such requests only on reasonable business grounds, but crucially, they must:
- Genuinely discuss the request with the employee.
- Try to reach agreement before refusing.
- Provide a written response within 21 days that clearly outlines reasons for refusal.
The Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms added an extra layer of accountability: if an employee disputes the handling of a request, the Commission now has stronger powers to review and enforce compliance.
What Went Wrong
The FWC concluded that Westpac had failed on the “genuine discussion” requirement. The bank’s process appeared procedural rather than consultative — a formality rather than a conversation.
This case highlights that even large, well-resourced organisations can fall short when decision-making becomes centralised or overly rigid. The Commission’s comments made it clear that employers are expected to actively engage, explore alternative arrangements, and demonstrate that they’ve considered both operational needs and employee circumstances.
Key Take-Aways for Employers and HR Teams
- Consultation isn’t a box-tick – genuine engagement means dialogue, not just documentation.
- Document discussions and reasoning – show your process, not just your position.
- Train managers – many refusals are made at line-manager level; they must understand their legal and procedural obligations.
- Review your flexible work policy – ensure it aligns with the latest legislative amendments and provides practical guidance for both employees and leaders.
- Consider alternatives – partial remote work, adjusted hours, or trial arrangements can demonstrate goodwill and flexibility while balancing business needs.
How WorkRight Advisory Can Help
At WorkRight Advisory, we help organisations strike the right balance between operational requirements and employee wellbeing. Our team supports HR leaders and business owners to:
- Review and update flexible work and remote-work policies;
- Create clear decision-making frameworks for assessing requests;
- Deliver training for managers on consultation obligations; and
- Conduct compliance checks to ensure processes meet Fair Work expectations.
This case reinforces a key principle of modern employment law: flexibility is no longer a perk — it’s a protected right. Employers who handle requests fairly, transparently and respectfully will not only stay compliant, but also build stronger, more engaged workplaces.
Read the full case here Karlene Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (C2025/5698)
