A Melbourne-based dispute resolution specialist has lost his legal bid for a permanent full-time work-from-home arrangement, brought forward to accommodate ongoing care for his sick child, after Australia’s Fair Work Commission ruled his employer’s rejection was lawful.
Jonathan Robinson serves as a dispute resolution expert at the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), where his core responsibilities center on reviewing and settling insurance claims valued up to $15,000. In September 2024, he submitted a formal request to work remotely on a permanent basis, citing the need for consistent, flexible care arrangements to support his child’s long-term health needs.
His request was ultimately turned down under AFCA’s official return-to-office policy, which requires all non-frontline staff to attend their physical workplace for a minimum of two days each week. In a formal email responding to Robinson’s application, AFCA management outlined that a full-time remote arrangement would hinder his ability to develop in-person professional connections, collaborate openly with colleagues, and onboard new team members effectively. The agency emphasized that in-office presence is a core requirement to foster organic knowledge sharing and maintain strong team cohesion across the organization.
Rather than an outright denial of all flexibility, AFCA offered a compromise: a phased return to in-office work that would ramp up from one day every two weeks to three days weekly, with built-in flexibility to accommodate school drop-offs and medical appointments for Robinson’s child.
The case landed before Fair Work Commission Deputy President Andrew Bell, who acknowledged that Robinson’s personal circumstances and motivation for the request were entirely genuine. Even so, Bell ruled that AFCA’s refusal to grant full-time remote status was rooted in reasonable business considerations. He further found that the agency’s two-day in-office mandate was neither arbitrary nor capricious in its application.
Bell noted in his ruling that large segments of the global and national workforce—particularly those in blue-collar roles—have no access to remote work options at all, even for limited periods. “Even for other employees for whom many tasks can be performed remotely, a requirement for some in-person attendance at work has long been recognised as a legitimate business need in many (although not all) businesses,” he stated in his final decision.
The ruling comes amid ongoing global debate post-pandemic over the balance between employer demands for in-office collaboration and employee needs for flexible work arrangements to meet caregiving responsibilities, highlighting the ongoing tensions between personal life obligations and institutional workplace policies in Australia’s modern labor market.