Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
In a landmark legal decision, the Fair Work Commission in Australia recently ruled against an employee’s request to work from home (WFH) 100% of the time. This case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over workplace flexibility in Australia and the evolving nature of work in the post-pandemic era.
According to a recent article published by The Daily Mail, the employee Charles Gregory, who worked for the salary packaging firm Maxxia, sought to work entirely from home for health and parenting reasons. Gregory reportedly suffers from inflammatory bowel disease, which he argued required urgent and frequent bathroom access that was more manageable at home. He also stated that he needed to be present for his young school-aged child, for whom he was seeking custody of every second week.
The Fair Work Commission ruled that Maxxia had “reasonable business ground” to reject a worker’s request to work 100% remotely. Maxxia offered a hybrid work compromise, allowing Gregory to work from home when he had his child in addition to a minimum 40% office presence. It’s reported that the tribunal, led by Commissioner Christopher Platt, emphasized the importance of face-to-face interaction, productivity, and employee support.
The case represents an influential decision in the global debate for the return to the office. While the pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote work environments, the decision in Australia shows a unique legal push towards enforcing a hybrid work model.
