Latest news with #Intersystems
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Brutal ruling on Aussie dad's WFH bid
A Sydney dad has failed in a legal bid to force his employer to let him work from home twice a week so he could help care for his school-age children. Sydney father Paul Collins, a technical specialist at global software company Intersystems Australia, lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking flexible working arrangements after attempts to reach a compromise failed. Intersystems operates an online record system in Australia known as TrakCare, utilised by healthcare providers to allow the sharing of health information between facilities and organisations. Mr Collins submitted a formal request to the company in January to work from home every Wednesday and Thursday - citing the need to care for his children, aged 8 and 10, and the need for 'work-life balance'. The Fair Work Commission has denied a Sydney dad's application for flexible working arrangements, after the father-of-two requested to work from home twice a week so he could help care for his school-aged kids. NewsWire / Nadir Kinani Credit: News Corp Australia Fair Work deputy president Lyndall Dean. Supplied Credit: Supplied Until late 2024, Mr Collins had been working remotely on both these days under a hybrid working model adopted by Intersystems following the Covid-19 pandemic. In November that same year, the company announced it was ending this arrangement and staff would need to return to the office five days a week from February 2025. Mr Collins' request was denied, but Intersystems offered an alternate arrangement of one work-from-home day per week. This was rejected and Mr Collins escalated the dispute to the FWC. In her judgment on Monday, FWC deputy president Lyndall Dean said she was not satisfied Mr Collins had established the 'requisite nexus' between his responsibility as a parent and the change he was seeking in his work arrangements. She said his written request 'merely expressed a preference to continue with a pre-existing pattern of remote work' and did not specify how working from home twice a week 'specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities'. Mr Collins had conceded in cross-examination that he had no specific caring duties between his work hours of 9am-5pm. He was also able to share responsibility for school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility arrangements, the Commission ruled. 'In my view, the Respondent made genuine attempts to engage with the Applicant's request, including offering alternative arrangements such as working shorter hours on specific days,' Ms Dean said. 'The Applicant gave no explanation as to why these alternatives were unsuitable. 'Accordingly, the request was not validly made, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.' Mr Collins had argued the company had failed to give individual consideration to his circumstances, as members of Intersystems' development team were permitted to work remotely. He pointed to his prior work arrangement in the years before and how it did not affect his 'productivity, availability, or overall performance'. Intersystems, however, said it had provided 'reasonable and sound business reasons' for not approving Mr Collins' initial request. The company maintained their position that employees were required to work from the office to 'facilitate the exchange of information' and allow for faster decision making and enhance customer service delivery. According to a 2024 user survey by Intersystems, there was a 28 per cent decline in customer satisfaction - prompting management to put the changes into effect.
News.com.au
4 days ago
- Business
- News.com.au
Fair Work slaps down Aussie dad's WFH request to help care for school-aged kids in bombshell workplace ruling
A Sydney dad has failed in a legal bid to force his employer to let him work from home twice a week so he could help care for his school-age children. Sydney father Paul Collins, a technical specialist at global software company Intersystems Australia, lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking flexible working arrangements after attempts to reach a compromise failed. Intersystems operates an online record system in Australia known as TrakCare, utilised by healthcare providers to allow the sharing of health information between facilities and organisations. Mr Collins submitted a formal request to the company in January to work from home every Wednesday and Thursday - citing the need to care for his children, aged 8 and 10, and the need for 'work-life balance'. Until late 2024, Mr Collins had been working remotely on both these days under a hybrid working model adopted by Intersystems following the Covid-19 pandemic. In November that same year, the company announced it was ending this arrangement and staff would need to return to the office five days a week from February 2025. Mr Collins' request was denied, but Intersystems offered an alternate arrangement of one work-from-home day per week. This was rejected and Mr Collins escalated the dispute to the FWC. In her judgment on Monday, FWC deputy president Lyndall Dean said she was not satisfied Mr Collins had established the 'requisite nexus' between his responsibility as a parent and the change he was seeking in his work arrangements. She said his written request 'merely expressed a preference to continue with a pre-existing pattern of remote work' and did not specify how working from home twice a week 'specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities'. Mr Collins had conceded in cross-examination that he had no specific caring duties between his work hours of 9am-5pm. He was also able to share responsibility for school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility arrangements, the Commission ruled. 'In my view, the Respondent made genuine attempts to engage with the Applicant's request, including offering alternative arrangements such as working shorter hours on specific days,' Ms Dean said. 'The Applicant gave no explanation as to why these alternatives were unsuitable. 'Accordingly, the request was not validly made, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.' Mr Collins had argued the company had failed to give individual consideration to his circumstances, as members of Intersystems' development team were permitted to work remotely. He pointed to his prior work arrangement in the years before and how it did not affect his 'productivity, availability, or overall performance'. Intersystems, however, said it had provided 'reasonable and sound business reasons' for not approving Mr Collins' initial request. The company maintained their position that employees were required to work from the office to 'facilitate the exchange of information' and allow for faster decision making and enhance customer service delivery. According to a 2024 user survey by Intersystems, there was a 28 per cent decline in customer satisfaction - prompting management to put the changes into effect.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Major new work from home rule every Aussie needs to know about - after worker tried to fight decision to go back to the office fulltime
A Sydney father's bid to work from home two days a week has been rejected by the Fair Work Commission, in a case that could have legal ramifications for Aussies forced back into the office Paul Collins, a long-serving tech specialist at global software firm Intersystems, requested to continue working remotely on Wednesdays and Thursdays. This followed the company's decision to end its COVID-era remote work arrangements in February and require all staff to return to the office full-time. In his request to Intersystems, the specialist said he wanted to work from home for better work-life balance and to help care for his eight and ten-year-old kids, a responsibility he shares with his wife, who also works at Intersystems. While the employer denied the request, it offered a one-day-a-week compromise, which Mr Collins rejected, before the matter escalated to the Commission. But the Fair Work Commission wasn't convinced. In a decisive ruling, Deputy President Lyndall Dean said a 'personal preference' for remote work simply wasn't enough. 'His written request merely expressed a preference to continue with a pre-existing pattern of remote work and failed to articulate how working from home two days per week specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities.' The Commission found Collins failed to show a direct link between his request and any specific parental duties that required him to be home during core working hours. 'He conceded in cross-examination that he has no specific caring duties between the core working hours of 9am and 5.00pm, and that he and his wife are able to manage school drop-offs and pick-ups through existing flexibility including adjusted start and finish times,' she said. Ms Dean ruled the specialist's written plea, which expressed a preference to continue with a pre‑existing pattern of remote work, failed to articulate how working from home specifically supported or related to his parental responsibilities. Monash University business law lecturer Amanda Selvarajah said the Fair Work Commission now seems to require parents to provide formal evidence of direct caregiving duties, such as personally supervising children, when applying for flexible work. Broader parental responsibilities, like cooking meals or maintaining the household, are often dismissed as irrelevant. 'The FWC appears to have assumed that flexible work requests as a parent will only have a requisite nexus where the parent can prove they are engaging in exclusive, direct caregiving responsibilities,' Selvarajah said in her paper. 'This neglects other potential parental obligations such as preparing meals or cleaning the home.' She warned the Commission's strict evidentiary standards are likely to disproportionately affect women, who tend to carry the bulk of caregiving responsibilities. 'This does not align with the Fair Work Act's objective of promoting gender equality,' she said.
