As Australia navigates the next wave of workplace transformation, remote work continues to sit at the intersection of employee expectations, productivity demands, and the political debate. While once seen as a temporary pandemic measure, flexible work has now evolved into a hotly contested space, shaped as much by shifting economic realities as by legislative change and court decisions. Recent announcements from both sides of politics, together with Fair Work Commission (FWC) rulings, offer insight into where this dynamic conversation is heading.
In early 2025, the Federal Opposition reignited debate on working from home, with signals that if elected, they may seek to restrict widespread working-from-home (WFH) arrangements. Framing the debate around declining productivity and weakened workplace culture, the Federal Opposition has argued that greater in-office presence is needed to support collaboration and economic growth. This reflects international trends, including in the United States, where major firms and public agencies are rolling back remote work permissions, citing similar concerns over productivity and employee engagement.
On the other hand, the Federal Government continues to support flexible work, including through its recent ‘Right to Disconnect’ reforms, embedding a right for employees to refuse unreasonable after-hours contact. These reforms highlight an underlying tension in contemporary work: while flexibility is popular among employees (particularly younger workers), governments and businesses are grappling with its productivity implications.
Key decisions on the limits of working remotely
Over the past year, the FWC has clarified the limits of employees’ rights to work remotely under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), and the ability of employers to refuse such requests on “reasonable business grounds”. Several notable cases shed light on how these principles are playing out:
- Quirke v BSR Australia Ltd:[1] the Full Bench clarified what constitutes a valid request under s65B of the FW Act, dismissing an application that did not satisfy threshold requirements. This case highlights that employees must make properly grounded requests, connected to their circumstances;
- Lloyd v ANZ Group Ltd:[2] the FWC found that a request to work fully from home based on age lacked an objective, rational connection to the employee’s circumstances, rendering it invalid. Even if valid, the employer’s reasonable business grounds to refuse (including the need for in-office collaboration) would have prevailed;
- Gregory v Maxxia Pty Ltd:[3] here, the FWC upheld the employer’s refusal of a 100% WFH request, endorsing the benefits of face-to-face engagement for productivity and employee support. Importantly, the employer’s attempts to negotiate alternatives demonstrated the genuine efforts required under the FW Act;
- Ridings v FedEx Express Australia Pty Ltd:[4] a partial win for employees, this case involved a family caregiver seeking a four-day remote work arrangement. The FWC did not endorse indefinite remote work but ordered a three-month trial of a flexible arrangement, indicating a preference for negotiated outcomes;
- Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd:[5] Significantly, the FWC required the employer to approve an additional remote day tied to childcare needs, showing a nuanced approach where personal circumstances warrant flexibility, but within reason.
These cases reveal three key trends:
- Employers must engage genuinely with flexibility requests but are not obliged to approve arrangements that undermine legitimate business needs;
- Evidence and clear reasoning matter — both employees and employers need well-documented, rational grounds for their positions; and
- The FWC recognises the value of in-person work, especially for collaboration, mentorship and productivity — echoing broader political concerns.
Faced with an increase in the volume of requests and a tightening regulatory landscape, employers are more frequently embedding flexibility in their enterprise agreements. Recent Model Flexibility Terms for enterprise agreement and modern award clauses suggest a move towards having clearer parameters for flexible work.
Employers must also grapple with psychosocial risks associated with WFH, including isolation, blurred boundaries and overwork. Leading HR teams are implementing structured hybrid models, often mandating a minimum number of in-office days to balance flexibility with team cohesion.
With both political parties framing remote work as a productivity and economic issue, the next election may shape the legislative future of flexible work. If calls to mandate office returns gain traction, we could see new statutory limitations on remote work — particularly in sectors where collaboration and innovation are key.
At the same time, employers should prepare for further regulatory developments, including:
- privacy and surveillance reforms are expected to introduce tighter controls on employee monitoring — especially critical for remote settings;
- AI and digital transformation consultations suggest new obligations to engage with workers when implementing technologies that affect work location and processes; and
- award-based WFH clauses and enterprise agreement terms will likely become more prescriptive, as disputes over the scope of flexible work increase.
The future of remote work is far from settled. The upcoming Federal election and geopolitical influences mean that we are at a critical juncture on how flexible work arrangements that meet business needs are balanced with evolving employee expectations. As the political debate sharpens and legal standards become clearer, organisations that adopt thoughtful, balanced approaches to remote work will be best placed to navigate this shifting terrain.
[1] [2023] FWCFB 209.
[2] [2024] FWC 2231.
[3] [2023] FWC 2768.
[4] [2024] FWC 1845.
[5] [2025] FWC 524.
The views expressed in this article are general in nature only and do not constitute legal advice. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require specific advice tailored to the needs of your organisation in relation to the implications of these changes for your organisation.