Workplace flexibility denied in high-profile Fair Work ruling
A Sydney father’s work-from-home request has been denied in a pivotal Fair Work Commission decision, highlighting limits to remote working rights for parents. Paul Collins, a technical specialist at Intersystems Australia, applied to work remotely twice a week to care for his children aged 8 and 10. However, the commission found his request did not meet legal requirements for flexibility.
Mr Collins previously worked remotely on Wednesdays and Thursdays under Intersystems’ hybrid model. That arrangement ended in early 2025, when the company reinstated mandatory in-office attendance. Collins’ formal bid to resume remote work was refused, triggering his legal application to the Fair Work Commission.
No proven connection to parental duties
In her ruling, Deputy President Lyndall Dean explained that Collins failed to show a clear link between his parenting responsibilities and his work-from-home request. She noted that “his written request merely expressed a preference to continue with a pre-existing pattern of remote work,” lacking evidence of how it directly related to child care needs.
Importantly, Collins acknowledged he had no specific caring duties during work hours and already shared drop-off and pick-up responsibilities under existing flexible terms. The commission ruled that alternative options offered by the employer were reasonable and should have been considered. These included one remote workday and shorter daily hours.
Employer’s business reasoning upheld
Intersystems defended its position by citing internal needs. The company argued that office-based operations promote collaboration, quicker decisions, and improved customer service. A recent survey showed customer satisfaction had fallen 28%, which the company attributed to reduced in-person staff availability.
The Fair Work Commission agreed that Intersystems provided “reasonable and sound business reasons” and ruled that Collins’ request did not qualify as a valid dispute under current law. The decision underscores that flexible work rights require clear justification, not just past practice or personal preference.
