Latest news with #LyndallDean
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
WFH warning after Aussie dad's request denied in new ruling: ‘Troubling'
A Sydney dad has had his request to work from home two days a week rejected by the Fair Work Commission. The case could have legal implications for other Aussies returning to the office full-time, with a legal expert noting workers would be required to show they have a 'good enough reason' to request to work from home. Fair Work deputy president Lyndall Dean found a 'preference' to continue working from home wasn't enough. She said the worker hadn't established a sufficient 'nexus' between the request and his responsibilities as a parent to care for his two school-age kids, aged 8 and 10, and this resulted in her ruling in favour of the employer. Monash University business law lecturer Amanda Selvarajah told Yahoo Finance the decision was an example of Fair Work putting the onus on employees to 'justify' their flexible work requests, with less focus placed on employers in comparison. RELATED Tradie 'forced' to quit job after boss swears at him in secretly recorded meeting Coles and Costco grocery price comparison 'shocks' Aussie mum Aussie tradie loses $110,000 house deposit due to small detail 'It sets a troubling precedent when employers don't have to justify their preferences around flexibility, but employees have to justify theirs. I think that tips the scales in a troubling way,' she said. Australian workers have the right to request flexible working arrangements if they are eligible full-time, part-time or long-term casuals and meet certain eligibility criteria. That includes workers who are parents or carers of kids of school age or younger, along with workers who are pregnant, carers, have a disability, are 55 or older, or are experiencing family and domestic violence. Employers can also refuse the request on "reasonable business grounds" and have to take certain steps, like discussing the request with the happened in the worker's case? The Sydney man worked for global software company Intersystems, as a technical specialist. The company had adopted a hybrid working model after the pandemic, with employees able to work from home two days per week. However, in November, the company let staff know they would be required to come into the office full-time, five days a week, from February. The man had requested to continue working from home two days per week, citing caring responsibilities for his two school-aged kids, which he shared with his wife, and the need for work-life balance. This was denied by his employer, who instead offered for him to work from home one day a week. This was rejected, with the worker then taking the matter to Fair Work. The company argued working from the office allowed employees to exchange information, supported mentoring opportunities, and allowed for faster decision making and more efficient resolution of customer issues. Its user survey revealed a 28 per cent decline in customer satisfaction, which prompted management to implement the measures. What did Fair Work decide? Dean found in favour of the employer. She said the evidence did not demonstrate that the employee was required to work from home two days per week in order to meet parental responsibilities. '[He] conceded in cross-examination that he has no specific caring duties between the core working hours of 9am and 5pm, 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. She added the employer made 'genuine' attempts to engage with the work from home request, including offering alternative arrangements like working shorter hours on specific days, with the employee giving 'no explanation' why the alternatives were unsuitable. What does this mean for other workers? More workers have been putting flexible work refusals to the test since the government introduced powers under the Secure Jobs Better Pay law. Selvarajah said the case was part of a 'pattern of decisions from the Fair Work Commission' and meant employees had to show a "good enough reason" to support their request. 'It does mean that employees making requests are probably not only going to have to specify the criteria they're relying on, but provide quite detailed reasons as to why the particular flexible work arrangement they're asking for is going to be related to the particular eligibility criteria and actually explain this 'nexus',' she told Yahoo Finance. Selvarajah said some employees may be reluctant to ask for flexible work arrangements if the bar is too high. 'To be engaging with that type of conversation with your employer about the specifics of why you might need to take time off, for example, if you were a family and domestic violence victim, that's quite a huge invasion of privacy,' she said. 'It's quite a lot to ask of employees, and at a time when I think we should be normalising flexible work requests, it actually places a lot of formality and rigmarole around asking for a flexible work request in the first place.' Selvarajah noted the case wasn't a binding precedent and the Commission could change their mind on the interpretation of the legislation and had scope to read it differently. It comes as major companies ask staff to return to the office full-time, including the likes of Amazon, Tabcorp and Flight Centre. Other companies like Woolworths have increased the number of days workers are required in the office.
Perth Now
17-07-2025
- 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.
