Long-term remote worker wins flexible work dispute against employer

Introduction

The Fair Work Commission has ordered an employer to allow a long-term remote employee to continue working predominantly from home after finding that a blanket return-to-office approach did not appropriately account for her caring responsibilities and individual circumstances.

In Laura Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1766, Commissioner Matheson considered a dispute under the flexible working arrangement provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act), balancing an employer’s business interests against an employee’s parental and caring responsibilities.

Background

Ms Kliffen had worked remotely since commencing employment with a predecessor business in 2016. Following parental leave and several business restructures and transfers, she continued to perform her role from home in New South Wales while caring for two young children, including one child with special needs diagnosed.

After acquiring the business, Reapit introduced a broader hybrid working model and in May 2024 directed Ms Kliffen to attend the Sydney office two days per week. Ms Kliffen submitted a formal flexible work request seeking to either continue working from home, attend the office only fortnightly, or commence later on office days due to childcare responsibilities and the significant commute.

The employer proposed several alternative arrangements over an extended period, including one office day per week and later commencement times. However, the parties remained unable to reach agreement and the dispute was referred to the Commission.

Key Findings

The Commission accepted that Ms Kliffen was entitled to request flexible work arrangements as a parent of school-aged children under the Fair Work Act. Commissioner Matheson also accepted that her reasons for seeking flexibility were genuine and connected to her caring responsibilities, particularly given the behavioural and medical needs of one of her children. Importantly, the Commission found the employer had genuinely attempted to consult and negotiate with Ms Kliffen over an extended period and had considered the consequences of refusing her request.

However, the Commission was not persuaded by all of the employer’s stated business grounds. While Reapit relied on concerns relating to culture, collaboration, efficiency and consistency across the workforce, Commissioner Matheson observed that “fair” treatment does not necessarily mean identical treatment where employees have different statutory rights and circumstances. The Commission also questioned how Ms Kliffen’s continued remote work would significantly disrupt operations given she had worked remotely for many years and many members of her team were already hybrid or fully remote.

At the same time, the Commission accepted that the employer had legitimate business interests associated with post-acquisition integration, training and team cohesion and therefore had reasonable business grounds to refuse a request to work permanently from home without any office attendance.

A significant factor was Ms Kliffen’s long-standing remote arrangement. Commissioner Matheson noted that she had worked remotely since 2016, that earlier documentation identified her home as her work location, and that it was “entirely reasonable” for her to expect those arrangements would continue following the transfer of employment. The Commission recognised that she had made important life decisions, including with respect to particular care for her disabled child, around that established arrangement.

Rather than accepting either party’s preferred position entirely, the Commission sought to strike a fair balance. It ordered that Ms Kliffen be permitted to continue working from home while attending the Sydney office once per fortnight on a nominated day, with a later commencement time of up to 10:30am and the ability to make up any missed hours across the fortnight.

Key Takeaways

This decision highlights several practical lessons for employers managing flexible work requests:

• Assess requests individually: A general return-to-office policy may not be enough where employees have statutory rights and genuine caring responsibilities.
• Consult meaningfully: The Commission gave weight to the employer’s lengthy consultation process and attempts to negotiate alternatives.
• Ensure business grounds are evidence-based: Assertions about culture, productivity or efficiency should be supported by evidence, particularly where employees have successfully worked remotely for extended periods.
• Review employment documentation carefully: Inconsistent contractual and onboarding documents about work location may undermine later attempts to require office attendance.
• Past arrangements matter: Long-standing remote work arrangements may shape employee expectations and influence how the Commission assesses fairness.
• Compromise may be required: Flexible work disputes are not always an “all or nothing” exercise, and the Commission may impose a middle-ground arrangement balancing operational and personal needs.

Learn More

If you’d like to learn more about any of the matters raised in this article, please contact NRA Legal on 1800 572 679 for a confidential conversation.

Laura Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1766