Westpac has decided to step back from a widely publicized legal confrontation, opting not to appeal a Fair Work Commission decision that supported a Sydney mother’s request to work remotely.

On Friday, the bank announced that it would not contest the ruling in favor of Karlene Chandler, a dedicated employee with 23 years of service, who works part-time in Westpac’s Sydney mortgage operations.

This decision represents a significant milestone in the national conversation surrounding flexible work arrangements, marking a notable triumph for working parents balancing their careers with family responsibilities.

Chandler, who is the mother of six-year-old twins, made her request in January to work from her home in Wilton, located 80 kilometers south of Sydney, to better manage her children’s school schedule.

Otherwise, she faced a daily commute totaling two hours, with the school located half an hour in the opposite direction from Westpac’s Kogarah office. Her partner, who is self-employed, has a job that takes him across Sydney and interstate, making it difficult for him to help out.

Initially, Westpac permitted Chandler to work remotely on some days but required her presence in the Kogarah office at least twice a week. She suggested a compromise, offering to complete her in-office days at a closer branch in Bowral, yet this proposal was turned down.

When mediation failed, the dispute went before the Fair Work Commission, which ruled Westpac must grant Ms Chandler’s request, noting she had worked from home ‘very successfully’ for years.

Workplace law expert Andrew Stewart told The Australian the decision was a ‘wake-up call’ for employers trying to force staff back into offices.

Karlene Chandler won a landmark case against Westpac after the bank refused to let her work from home five days a week. She is pictured after picking her children up from school

Westpac argued its two day a week in office attendance policy was essential. Pictured: Westpac CEO Anthony Miller and HR boss Kate Dee

‘It’s not enough merely to assert that we need people in the office. You actually have to show what the reason for that is, and show you are being consistent about that belief,’ said Stewart, a professor of work and regulation at the Queensland University of Technology.

‘So sudden changes of course where you have been happy to let somebody work from home but now they have to be in the office at least part of the time, or you’re insisting on it for some workers but not for others, it’s going to be very difficult to defend that.’

During the case, Westpac defended its hybrid policy requiring staff to attend corporate offices two days a week, arguing this ensured collaboration and business performance. 

It cited in-office practices such as team huddles and training sessions as vital tools not available to remote workers.

While acknowledging Ms Chandler’s role could be done remotely, the bank argued full-time remote work would weaken cohesion and undermine its authority to require other staff to attend in person. 

It also claimed her long commute resulted from ‘life choices’ made without company approval.

But Commission deputy president Thomas Roberts disagreed.

‘There is no question Ms Chandler’s work can be performed completely remotely,’ he said. ‘She has been working remotely for a number of years and doing so very successfully. Deadlines have been met or exceeded.’

In August, CEO Anthony Miller publicly opposed new landmark legislation in Victoria that would give employees a legal right to work from home at least two days a week

The ruling has been hailed as a major win for working parents and a precedent for future flexible work disputes. 

Finance Sector Union assistant national secretary Nicole McPherson said the union is now helping more employees secure similar arrangements.

‘This win sends a strong message to all employers,’ she said. ‘They must have genuine business grounds for refusing flexible work requests and meet every obligation under the Fair Work Act before saying no.’

Under the Act, parents of school-aged children and workers over 55 can seek flexible arrangements. The Commission stressed that the procedural steps set out in Section 65A are not optional, employers must properly engage with staff, respond in writing within the required timeframe and explain any refusal.

Even where business grounds exist, failing to follow due process can invalidate a refusal,  as Westpac discovered in this case.

It added in-office practices such as team huddles, training sessions, and real-time updates via ‘call boards’, which helped staff stay customer-focused, were tools not accessible to remote employees.

While Westpac acknowledged certain tasks could technically be done remotely, it maintained that overall team performance and cohesion were significantly better when employees had regular face-to-face interaction.

It also argued that any Commission order allowing her to work remotely full-time would undermine Westpac’s authority to order other workers still attend the office at least two days a week.

It added that the employee’s long commute was due to her life choices, and was done without the approval of Westpac.

But Commission deputy president Thomas Roberts disagreed.

‘There is no question that Ms Chandler’s work can be performed completely remotely,’ he said.

‘She has been working remotely for a number of years and doing so very successfully.

‘Deadlines have been met or exceeded.’