Gregory v Maxxia Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 2768
On 16 November 2023, the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) ruled on a dispute between Charles Gregory and Maxxia Pty Ltd (Maxxia) regarding a request for flexible working arrangements in the first test of the changes introduced by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022.
The facts
Mr Gregory, employed by Maxxia, submitted his flexible working arrangement application on 17 August 2023. Mr Gregory requested that he work 100% of his full-time hours from home on an ongoing basis. The primary ground for his application related to parental responsibilities for his child of school age or younger. At the time of the hearing, Mr Gregory cared for his child for one day every two weeks. A medical condition supported by a letter from his treating doctor was also submitted as grounds for application. However, the written application did not reference the medical condition as a basis for the request.
Maxxia, a provider of salary packaging advice, acknowledged the request on 18 August 2023. Maxxia proposed a change that would allow Mr Gregory to work 20% in the office until the end of September and then 40% from 2 October 2023. This would allocate his office days to the week he would not have custody of his child. Maxxia cited operational and productivity concerns as reasons for the proposed change. Maxxia emphasised the importance of team collaboration, client expectations, and the nature Mr Gregory’s role as supporting evidence. Mr Gregory rejected the offer and sought to work 100% from home.
The Fair Work Commission
Despite attempts at negotiation and further medical evidence provided by Mr Gregory, the employer refused the 100% remote work request on 28 August 2023. Mr Gregory lodged a FWC application under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). This section concerns requests for flexible work arrangements.
Sections 65 and 65A of the Act outline the circumstances under which an employee can request flexible working arrangements. These sections also concern the obligations of the employer in responding to such requests. Maxxia contended that they had discussed the request, genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Mr Gregory. Discussions were had regarding changes to accommodate Mr Gregory’s medical condition and parental responsibilities as well as the consequences of refusal. Maxxia contended that Mr Gregory’s full-time contract of employment required him to attend Maxxia’s premises to perform the work required. With no agreement reached, Maxxia submitted the request as refused on reasonable business grounds pursuant to section 65A(3)(d).
Decision
The FWC, in considering Mr Gregory’s request, found insufficient evidence to classify his medical condition as a disability under the Act. In relation to his parental responsibilities, the FWC acknowledged the validity of Mr Gregory’s request during weeks when he had custody of his child. The FWC ultimately ruled in favour of Maxxia, recognising the employer’s reasonable business grounds for refusing Mr Gregory’s request to work 100% from home.
This decision underscores the delicate balance between employee rights and operational needs, as defined by the Act. It highlights the importance of the nexus between an employee’s request and the circumstances outlined in the Act. Employers and employees must navigate the legislative framework conscientiously to find mutually beneficial solutions to flexible work arrangements.
To speak to us about your specific needs, or to obtain a full list of our services, please contact our team
Call us at (02) 9181 5001 or email us at: .
Our full services: https://integroe.com.au/legal-services
Fair Work Act: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2009A00028/2021-09-11/text