Employer reasonably rejected Educator’s flex-work request based on “restrictive roster”

An early childhood employer’s rejection of an Educator’s request to continue working shifts that facilitated the collection of her young children after school has been upheld by the Fair Work Commission, with Commissioner Schneider confirming compliance with ratio requirements and child safety guidelines prevails over an employee’s desired working hours.

The diploma qualified employee had been working a set roster with a daily finish time of 3.00/3.30pm for more than a year when she was notified the employer would be implementing a rotational roster to meet minimum legal requirements “to ensure 50% diploma qualified staff on site during operating hours”. The decision resulted from a statewide review and audit of its Western Australian operations, which had been conducted “to ensure safety and regulatory compliance”. 

The employee was reluctant to amend her working hours and raised a request for flexible working arrangements on the basis she has “school-age children who require care and assistance with after-school activities, homework, and school commute”. The Educator maintained her family did not believe it was safe for the children to be unattended after school or for them to use public transport and pursued an ongoing roster that permitted her to work shifts of 7.00/7.30am to 3.00pm/3.30pm.

The employer was unable to accommodate the employee’s request, instead proposing three alternative rostering arrangements which had regard to her caring responsibilities as well as the operational requirements of the business, but the employee was not agreeable to any of the employer’s suggestions, nor did she propose any alternatives of her own. The employer further submitted that the Educator is a full-time, diploma qualified team member, and that “to ensure that there are always at least 50% diploma qualified staff on site” the business required her “to work the span of hours as contemplated by the [Children’s Services Award]”.

In determining the employee’s dispute regarding her request for flexible working arrangements, Commissioner Schneider found the employer had reasonable grounds for refusing the employee’s request, accepting the business was bound to comply with statutory regulations to ensure minimum staffing levels and child safety. The Commissioner acknowledged that as the working arrangements of other staff could not have been re-arranged any further to accommodate the employee, new staff would have to be employed, imposing an “added cost or operational inconvenience” on the employer.

Commissioner Schneider assessed the employer was not obliged to accept the “somewhat restrictive roster” the Educator desired and was further satisfied that they had reasonably engaged with her regarding her request, putting forward appropriate roster alternatives “seeking to accommodate flexibility”. Finally, in concluding his decision and dismissing the employee’s dispute, the Commissioner conceded that, had the employer been able to accept the Educator’s request, it likely could have resulted in “tension and other workplace issues, arising from equity and fairness” with her co-workers, especially in circumstances “where the accommodation of such preferable roster could be at the inconvenience of others”.

Kaur v G8 Education T/A Jellybeans Childcare [2025] FWC 3396 (12 November 2025)