Major WFH ruling in the boss's favour shakes corporate Australia: Busy white collar dad working from the couch loses plea over kid's daycare and wife's medical condition

By SARAH BROOKES - SENIOR REPORTER, AUSTRALIA Published: 15:40, 9 August 2026 | Updated: 15:55, 9 August 2026 The ongoing debate over working from home has intensified after a tribunal upheld an employer’s decision to refuse a father’s bid for permanent remote work, despite his claims of needing to care for his disabled wife and young child. Melbourne dad Jonathan Robinson, a dispute resolution specialist with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), sought permission in September 2024 to work from home full-time so he could help look after his family.  Under Fair Work laws, employees who have caring responsibilities, including for young children or immediate family members, can request flexible work arrangements if they have been with their employer for at least 12 months.  However, AFCA refused the request, citing its policy requiring full-time employees to attend the office at least two days a week. The company also argued there were reasonable business grounds for rejecting permanent remote work.  'This request would limit his ability to build crucial face-to-face connections, engage with colleagues and collaborate effectively, especially with new team members,' an email from management explained. 'It is essential that he is present in the office to contribute to knowledge-sharing and team cohesion.' AFCA proposed a gradual return to the office, starting with one day a fortnight, before increasing to three days, with flexibility around school drop-offs and appointments.  Melbourne dad Jonathan Robinson (pictured) sought permission in September 2024 to work from home full-time so he could help care for his family  Under Fair Work laws, employees who have caring responsibilities can request flexible work arrangements if they have been with their employer for at least 12 months The dispute landed before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), where Mr Robinson argued AFCA had failed to properly consider the toll the decision would take on his family. The specialist had worked from home full-time in Victoria throughout the Covid-19 pandemic while government lockdown orders were in place. When the restrictions were lifted, he continued working from home full-time until 2024, when he requested a flexible arrangement to allow full-time remote work under his current hours.  'My four year old, who [is] enrolled to attend childcare full-time, is currently struggling with ongoing health issues,' he wrote to AFCA in an email seen by the commission. 'These have significantly impacted their ability to physically go to childcare some days, and as such, I need to be home to care for them.  'Also, they are enrolled to start primary school next year, with uncertainty on how much time there they will be able to cope with.' Mr Robinson added his child could only attend school until 12.45pm each day.  But the Fair Work Commission refused Mr Robinson's bid, finding the hybrid work policy and emphasis on face-to-face collaboration amounted to reasonable business grounds The commission also heard that Mr Robinson's wife was immunocompromised and suffered from other significant health conditions.   'Due to changes in her health, I find I need to be home more often to provide immediate care for her around the home,' he wrote. 'As such I would like to be exempted from the requirement to physically attend the office to allow my ongoing effective care of my child and spouse.'  Mr Robinson advised that 'the child is often home as they are unable to go to daycare' and his wife's condition 'prevents her from everyday parenting duties'.  He said when he works from home he is on the couch with his laptop so he can care for the child.  When Mr Robinson had work meetings, he would arrange in advance for his wife to care for their child. Any change in meeting times made these arrangements difficult.  Mr Robinson acknowledged missing regular team meetings, attributing this to last-minute specialist appointments or other emergencies.  He acknowledged he had been logging in after hours to complete work that should have been completed during ordinary hours. New Victorian Premier Ben Carroll (pictured) appeared to distance himself from Jacinta Allan’s controversial work-from-home laws, refusing to guarantee the flagship policy will survive  But FWC deputy president Andrew Bell ruled in favour of the employer, finding the hybrid work policy and emphasis on face-to-face collaboration amounted to reasonable business grounds for refusing the request. 'A requirement for some in-person attendance at work has long been recognised as a legitimate business need,' he said in his published decision. 'There remains vast tracts of the workforce - largely blue collar work - for whom the option to work from home for any period is an impossibility. 'There was no capriciousness or arbitrariness about the guideline. It was a workplace policy plainly open for the employer to hold.' Deputy President Bell said he accepted the manager’s concerns that Mr Robinson faced distractions while working from home, including interruptions during meetings, working late hours to make up time and a general lack of oversight. The ruling is the latest in a string of Fair Work cases testing the limits of employees' rights to work from home after the pandemic.   New Victorian Premier Ben Carroll has appeared to distance himself from Jacinta Allan's controversial work-from-home laws, refusing to guarantee that the policy will remain unchanged under his government. The move marks a stark contrast to Carroll's previous enthusiastic backing of the proposal, which would give workers a broad right to work from home two days a week. Asked repeatedly whether he supported the legislation, Carroll declined to commit. 'That legislation is before Parliament, and I have nothing to answer or say on that today,' he said. 'Work from home is good for families and it is good for workers.' The proposal has sparked a fierce backlash from business groups, which accuse the government of pushing ahead without proper consultation and warn it could create a damaging precedent for employers. With the legislation still before Parliament, the laws could yet be amended or abandoned.