The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has highlighted the importance of providing specific and detailed reasons when refusing flexible working arrangement requests, cautioning against “generic and blanket HR answers.” This case involved a FedEx clearance classifier who sought to work entirely from home due to his significant caregiving responsibilities.

Background

The employee, who joined FedEx in April 2015, requested a flexible working arrangement to care for his wife and two children. His wife shows signs of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and is diagnosed with Level 2 autism, while both children have an intellectual disability and Level 3 autism. Given these circumstances, the Commissioner confirmed that the classifier qualified as a carer under the Fair Work Act’s s65(1A)(b).

Interim Arrangement and Non-compliance

An interim arrangement was conciliated in late March, requiring the classifier to work from the office one day a week until the Commission made a final decision. However, the classifier did not adhere to this arrangement and continued working entirely from home, claiming the office mandate was neither lawful nor reasonable.

The Commissioner found that the employee’s refusal to follow the employer’s direction, which was lawful and reasonable, negatively impacted the case. The commissioner emphasised that employees must comply with such directions until a flexible working request is formally approved. Additionally, the employee had not provided sufficient information about his increasing caregiving responsibilities, hindering FedEx’s ability to make an informed decision.

Employer’s Position

FedEx argued that the employee needed to work from the office one day a week to maintain efficiency and productivity. However, the company’s reasons for refusing the flexible work request were deemed too generic and did not adequately consider the classifier’s personal circumstances or wellbeing. The Commissioner noted that FedEx did make genuine attempts to reach an agreement but failed to fully consider the impacts of full-time remote work on the employee’s mental health and isolation. The commissioner said that FedEx could have considered matters such as employee wellbeing and the fact that full time remote work “can be isolating, particularly in a potentially stressful environment”.

Decision and Order

The FWC ruled that FedEx’s refusal lacked specific and reasonable business grounds, primarily because of their generic responses and failure to address the employee’s unique situation. The Commissioner issued an order that was tailored to ensure the employee’s compliance while addressing both parties’ needs. The order allows FedEx to mandate office attendance if the employee did not show up without valid leave, reinforcing the importance of following lawful directions. The employee was required to attend the office 1 day a week. The Commissioner ordered that:

• If the employee does not attend the office for 2 consecutive weeks; or
• there are performance concerns; or
• there are genuine operational requirements which require the employee’s attendance;

FedEx may lawfully and reasonably request the employee to work at the office on the days that he is permitted to work from home.

The case illustrates the delicate balance required in flexible working arrangements, emphasising that both operational efficiency and employee wellbeing must be considered. Clear communication and good faith efforts from both parties are essential in reaching mutually beneficial agreements.

Lessons for Employers:

• This decision highlights the necessity of providing detailed and specific reasons when refusing flexible work requests.
• Employers must take reasonable steps to understand and consider the employee’s personal circumstances.
• Employers must fully consider the impact of refusing a flexible working request on the employee.

If you would like to discuss these or other workplace issues, please contact Andrew Bland or call 02 9412 3077.