“Uninterrupted focus” requirement justified rejection of ongoing WFH bid

A senior payroll clerk has lost the right to continue operating under a long-running arrangement permitting him to work from home on Mondays and Fridays, with the Fair Work Commission agreeing with his employer that his role requires a high level of “focus and attention to detail”, which cannot be sustained at the same time he is acting as the primary carer for two very young children.

The clerk began working for the employer in April 2020, at which time remote working arrangements were implemented to comply with state-based government mandates stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, as restrictions eased, employees were asked to return to the office a minimum of three days per week and in 2024, the employer adopted a formal hybrid work policy. Specifically, the policy stipulated that, “An employee whilst operating under a Hybrid Work Arrangement, cannot also be acting as the primary carer of a child who is primary school aged or younger, during business hours”. From late-May 2024, the full-time clerk was approved to work from home on Mondays and Fridays, with the arrangement remaining in force throughout 2025. At the end of September 2025, the clerk was notified that the hybrid work policy would be “discontinued” as of 1 January 2026.

The clerk raised a request for flexible working arrangements on 21 January, which he was eligible to do as the parent of a child aged school age or younger. The clerk requested to continue working the hybrid model which permitted him to work remotely on Mondays and Fridays, to support him in attending to his family responsibilities and his role as primary carer of his children on those days. The request was discussed in multiple meetings held between the employer and employee across the following weeks but was eventually declined on 20 February. The written response referenced multiple alternatives put forward by the employer (including rearranging his full-time hours across a 4-day week or working shorter days on Mondays/Fridays) which the employee had already declined and confirmed the employer’s refusal of the clerk performing remote work on days when he was also “the primary caregiver for his children”.

In articulating the reasons for refusal, the employer cited concerns around the clerk’s need to work with “uninterrupted focus when carrying out processing for payroll… with limited distractions to ensure there are minimum to no errors”; “a marked drop in performance and attention to detail” on days he worked from home; and that “development targets” were not being met.

Commissioner Matheson confirmed the employee was eligible to raise the request and it had been validly made, but she was also satisfied the employer had followed appropriate process in considering and responding to the request, notwithstanding the written response was not issued within the legislated 21-day timeframe; the written response “was ultimately provided”, she observed.

The clerk argued against the employer’s claims that his performance had been negatively impacted while working remotely, and as to concerns regarding his caring responsibilities, he submitted there was a distinction between his role as “primary carer” on Mondays and Fridays and that of a “sole carer”. The clerk also drew attention to the fact he had enjoyed the same hybrid working model for several years prior, proving it could be accommodated.

Commissioner Matheson preferred the evidence of the employer, accepting that in the clerk’s most recent performance review of January 2026, his manager assessed his performance as “Partially meets Expectations”, adding that “it was evident that more focus, care and time needs to be taken” by the clerk “to find the right results for payroll queries or exceptions”. The Commissioner was also persuaded that the clerk’s carer’s responsibilities had “materially changed” since his original remote working arrangements were approved during the COVID-19 pandemic, which preceded him becoming a father. Even when his first child was born, Commissioner Matheson acknowledged it occurred “at a time during which time his wife was also the primary carer”. Now pregnant with their third child and experiencing a pregnancy-related medical condition, Commissioner Matheson expressed, “it is unclear what assistance the [clerk’s] wife can provide in caring for the children while they are at home, if any”. On this point specifically, the Commissioner concluded:

“Based on the information before the Commission I do not consider that it is feasible for [the clerk] to take on a role of primary carer of two children, aged two and four years, at the same time he is carrying out payroll duties in which uninterrupted focus is reasonably required. There is a very high risk of interruption while performing such work while caring for two very young children and I accept this gives rise to a real risk of error and inefficiency when performing an important and complex function. I also find, on the balance of probabilities, that [the clerk’s] responsibilities as a primary carer for the children while trying to carry out his payroll work at the same time has contributed to performance concerns such that [the clerk] is only “Partially” meeting expectations as reflected in his rating.”

Having assessed that the employer had reasonable business grounds for refusing the clerk’s request to continue working from home on Mondays and Fridays, Commissioner Matheson encouraged the parties to revisit discussions around alternative working arrangements that would “better balance” the needs of the business and the employee. She also recommended the clerk “be open to some changes to his working arrangements and/or the children’s caring arrangements”.

Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2371 (26 June 2026)

Workplace disputes of this nature are becoming increasingly common, with requests for flexible working arrangements a particularly hot topic of late. Employers confronted with a sensitive employee request should consider how Employer Services Legal can help.