By Mike Toten Freelance Writer

The Fair Work Comission (FWC) has overruled an employer’s directive that employees must return to working in the central office for three days per week. The case concerned an employee whose daughter had cystic fibrosis. To protect the daughter’s health, she wanted to minimise contact with other people by working at home as much as possible. 

 

Facts of case 

The employee had worked entirely from home since commencing her job, but the employer issued a return-to-office directive to all employees for at least 3 days per week. She applied for an exemption on the grounds of being a parent and carer because her teenage daughter had cystic fibrosis and she wished to protect her health my minimising her own contact with outsiders. She argued that her job performance to date proved that she could do her job effectively from home. She was fearful that hot-desking in the office could expose her to pathogens and contaminated surfaces that could put her daughter’s health at risk. A medical consultant provided a report to support her concerns. 

The employer offered to reduce her in-office days to two per week plus attend at other times when directed, but she rejected that offer and lodged a work flexibility application with the FWC. 

The employer argued that both the employee and her daughter took part in various activities (eg playing sport) outside the house. Therefore she was not housebound and her request was not based on medical necessity. The employee counterclaimed that being confined to an enclosed office for an entire day posed a greater risk than attending outdoor events for shorter periods, and that her aim was to minimise outside contact, not completely eliminate it. Her evidence was that she needed to provide as normal a life for her daughter as possible, but that required taking precautions elsewhere (eg at work) to minimise the risk of potential infections, thus finding a balance overall. The employer’s argument, in contrast, was that unless the circumstances required her to be completely housebound, she did not have a case. 

 

Decision 

The FWC found that the employer did not have “reasonable business grounds” for refusing the request. The employer had argued that the employee had confected her claims about the risk of infections, instead of providing evidence of “business” reasons why it could not grant the request.  

The FWC observed that both sides took overly dogmatic approaches to the dispute. It said that there would be reasons why the employee would occasionally need to attend the office or other work-related events, and the parties should seek a solution via “common sense and pragmatism” that would work for both of them. 

The FWC ordered the employer to exempt the employee from its return-to-office directive. 

 

What this means for employers 

This is one of the few cases in which the FWC has granted an employee’s request to reject a return-to-office directive. It is reminder that, if refusing a work flexibility request, the employer must be able to cite empirical “reasonable business grounds”. 

 

Read the judgment 

Catherine Louise v Metcash Trading Ltd [2025] FWC 2090 (18 July 2025)