A landmark ruling granting a Westpac employee the right to work from home, against the bank's wishes, has exposed deep divisions over the future of flexible work.
Sydney mother Karlene Chandler, a Westpac employee for 23 years, requested working from home so she could manage school drop-offs and care for her young twins.
The mother had moved with her family to Wilton, 80km south of Sydney, in 2021 to be closer to the children's private school but much further away from Westpac's office.
From her new home it took two hours to travel from the school to the office.
Westpac denied the employee’s request, arguing her lengthy commute was her choice and not having her in the office would negatively affect operations.
She challenged the decision under the Fair Work Act’s flexible work provisions, which apply to specific groups including parents of school-aged children and individuals over 55.
The Fair Work Commission's Deputy President Tom Roberts found in her favour, stating there was no doubt she she could perform her role entirely remotely, as she had done successfully for four years.
Roberts concluded Westpac not only failed to genuinely consider the request, but also lacked reasonable business grounds to reject it.
The ruling could set a precedent for stronger remote work entitlements, placing greater weight on individual circumstances over corporate preferences when roles are demonstrably suited to work from home.
Unions have warned the decision may have far-reaching consequences for large employers pursuing return-to-office mandates since the end of the Covid lockdowns.
Supporters say the decision is a victory for work-life balance, but critics warn it could backfire, fuelling job cuts, offshoring, and declining productivity.
'Everyone that works from home says the same thing - 'I work harder' but visit them during work hours and they're doing house chores and having a beverage or five,' one commenter wrote.
A recurring concern was that, if being in the office was not required, then all those jobs could be outsourced to low-wage foreign workers.
'If she can do her job remotely, they'll give it to someone cheaper overseas. She just shot herself in the foot,' another said.
Others argued WFH deepens inequality, particularly for younger staff missing out on mentorship and fostering personal relationships, and was unfair to those workers - from nurses to truck drivers to teachers - who don't have that option.
There was also concern that if WFH became an entitlement to all mothers, then female staff become regarded as a potential liability.
'What she's done is make employers rethink hiring women,' one woman said. 'They already assume we'll go off and get pregnant - now they'll think we'll demand to work from home. She's done a disservice to all women.'
But others strongly defended Ms Chandler's stance.
'We complain about migration but love to make things hard for mums,' one commenter said.
WFH gives parents an extra few hours a day for their kids. Families are less rushed and less stressed. It's good for society.'
Another argued flexible work could even help reverse Australia's falling birth rate: 'If we show girls a manageable version of motherhood, they might see they don't have to choose between a career and children.'
Critics said Ms Chandler's commute was her choice, but others countered that skyrocketing housing costs force many Australians to live far from their workplaces.
'With housing the way it is, most people can't afford to live near the CBD. It's not a lifestyle choice, it's a financial necessity,' one person wrote.
Others pointed out WFH can boost productivity through fewer distractions and shorter commutes.
'I'm more productive at home, no randoms at my desk, no traffic, no exhaustion,' one worker said. 'I work longer hours and my employer gets more out of me.'
Some even said it benefits businesses: 'Fewer people in the office means less rent. It's a win-win.'
Beyond the legal implications, the debate also revealed generational rifts.
'They (Boomers) haven't been employed since 1988 and are stuck in that mindset,' one commenter said. 'Technology has come a long way. I'm monitored to within an inch of my life and still get my work done.'
Another wrote: 'Running a business isn't about how many people are in an office. Only dinosaurs think productivity equals presence.'
Others defended hybrid models: 'WFH done well is win-win. My team's in twice a week, home three days.
'They perform well and get to pick up their kids. Slack workers are slack anywhere - office or home.'
Business advocates warn the ruling undermines employers' ability to manage their operations.
'The company pays the wage and sets the rules. If they want you in the office, you go, or find another job,' one said.
'I'm blown away that an employer is being told by law what's best for their business. The cart is now leading the horse,' another wrote.
Recruitment expert Tammie Bayliss said 'work-from-home jobs are disappearing' with major hirers including Amazon, Dell, Tabcorp and Flight Centre already ordering staff back to the office full-time.
'People have taken the p*ss, to be quite frank, and big companies want them back,' Ms Bayliss said. 'If you want a remote job, start your own business.'
She said rising unemployment and a tightening job market mean workers now have less leverage.
'Two years ago, I'd have said differently - but in 2025, work-from-home jobs are becoming rare,' she said. 'If people quit because they're losing WFH days, there'll be plenty lining up to replace them.'
Read more- Are Aussie bosses at war with the work-from-home trend despite its popularity?
- Is the beloved work-from-home lifestyle set for extinction as Amazon and Tabcorp demand workers return to offices permanently?
- Is the tide turning on remote work? With 82% of bosses eager for a full office return, could WFH flexibility face extinction?
- Are employers spearheading a dramatic end to Australia's work-from-home era by insisting workers return to the office?
- Could the explosive Westpac WFH ruling reshape Australia's entire corporate landscape by empowering employees to demand more flexibility?