Staying compliant with statutory flexible working arrangement requests demands more than ticking a box. As we look back on 2026, some FWC rulings from the year underscore that employers must balance genuine business needs with individual employee circumstances, and document each step.
Culture, collaboration, or appeals to “This is how we have always done it” won’t cut it by themselves. What matters is a careful, statutorily-compliant process focused on fairness, evidence and real engagement, not blanket rules or assumptions.
Statutory framework
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) requires employers to follow a prescribed process before refusing a statutory flexible working arrangement (FWA) request. Any refusal must be based on reasonable business grounds and accompanied by an explanation detailing how those grounds apply to the specific request.
Can any employee make a FWA request?
Not every employee or circumstance gives rise to the ability to request a FWA. To qualify, an employee must satisfy the relevant service period requirements and seek a change due to prescribed circumstances, such as pregnancy, responsibility for a child of school age or younger, carer status, disability, being 55 or older, or specified family and domestic violence situations.
Non-casual employees generally require 12 months’ continuous service to qualify. Casual employees must satisfy separate tests for regular employment and a reasonable expectation of ongoing employment. Any request must be made in writing and must detail both the change sought and the reasons for it.
Since 6 June 2023, the FWC has had expanded powers to deal with statutory flexible work disputes, including arbitration where necessary. In making arbitration orders, the Commission must take account of fairness between employer and employee.
What counts as “reasonable business grounds”?
The Act gives a non-exhaustive list of reasonable business grounds for refusing a FWA request, including:
- Significant efficiency or productivity loss: The requested arrangement would likely result in a substantial reduction in efficiency or productivity.
- Cost and staffing constraints: The arrangement would be too costly; there is no capacity to change other employees’ arrangements; or changing those arrangements or recruiting new employees would be impractical.
- Significant customer service impacts: The arrangement would be likely to have a significant negative impact on customer service.
A general policy or preference is not sufficient; employers must explain how the business grounds apply to the individual request. Although numerical metrics may assist, the assessment may also consider substantiated operational risks and practical constraints.
Culture and collaboration: context matters
In assessing the importance of office attendance, the question is not whether office attendance has value in the abstract, but whether the employer’s grounds justify refusing the particular request.
In Laura Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1766, the FWC accepted that integration, training and team cohesion provided reasonable business grounds to refuse entirely remote work. However, it ordered a tailored arrangement involving office attendance once per fortnight, taking account of the employee’s caring responsibilities and longstanding remote arrangement.
The decision does not establish that culture or collaboration can never justify attendance – rather, it illustrates the importance of assessing the employee’s individual circumstances.
A contrasting decision: Gurung v Knauf
In Rabin Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2371, issued on 26 June 2026, the FWC upheld the refusal of a request to work from home on Mondays and Fridays while acting as primary carer for two young children. The Commission accepted the payroll role’s need for sustained concentration and the risk of interruptions, errors and inefficiency. The employer had also discussed alternatives, including compressed hours and split shifts, without reaching agreement.
The reasoning provides a useful counterpoint to Kliffen: flexibility requests can be refused where role-specific operational grounds support that outcome. However, it should not be read as a blanket rule against WFH for parents or carers.
Practical takeaways for HR professionals
- Always consider the individual circumstances: There is no automatic entitlement to have a statutory flexible work request granted. Equally, an employer cannot rely on business grounds alone while overlooking the required process. Individual assessment, genuine engagement and a clear explanation of the decision remain central to managing these requests.
- Document relevant evidence: Record the role’s requirements, operational risks, relevant metrics and the employee’s circumstances. Explain how the evidence supports the grounds relied on; numerical data is not the only form of support.
- Consider alternatives as part of discussions – it is not an ‘all or nothing’: Discuss the request, genuinely try to agree on changes that accommodate the relevant circumstances, and consider the consequences of refusal. A hybrid trial may help test workable alternatives, but neither a trial nor a three-month duration is prescribed by the Act.
- Provide a written response: Respond in writing within 21 days, granting the request, recording an agreed alternative or providing a compliant refusal.
If you have questions about managing FWA requests, please contact a member of the Emplawyer team.
