The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Collins v Intersystems Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1976 highlights the importance of properly framing requests for flexible working arrangements and the limitations of the Commission’s jurisdiction when such requests do not strictly comply with statutory requirements.
Background
Paul Collins, a long-serving employee of Intersystems Australia Pty Ltd, sought to continue working from home two days a week after his employer announced a return to full-time office attendance. He lodged a formal request under section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), citing his parental responsibilities for two school-aged children.
Intersystems refused the request, instead offering one work-from-home day per week and suggesting other alternative arrangements. Mr Collins declined these proposals and brought a dispute before the Fair Work Commission.
The Legal Framework
Sections 65, 65A, 65B and 65C of the Fair Work Act set out the right to request flexible working arrangements, employer obligations, and the Commission’s powers to deal with disputes. Importantly, a request must:
- Be made in writing;
- Clearly identify a qualifying circumstance (such as being a parent of school-aged children); and
- Set out how the change in working arrangements is connected to that circumstance.
The Commission may only arbitrate a dispute if the request was validly made.
Commission’s Findings
Deputy President Dean found that Mr Collins’ request was not validly made, as required under the Act. The application was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds for two main reasons:
Lack of Nexus Between Circumstances and Request
Mr Collins did not clearly explain how working from home two days per week was necessary to meet his parenting responsibilities. In fact, evidence showed that both he and his wife (also an Intersystems employee) were already able to manage school routines through staggered start and finish times.
Failure to Address Employer’s Reasonable Alternatives
Intersystems had offered Mr Collins various alternatives, including split office/home days and adjusted hours. The Commission considered these as genuine attempts to accommodate his situation. Mr Collins failed to explain why these alternatives were inadequate.
Even if the request had been valid, the Commission noted it would have upheld Intersystems’ decision on the basis of reasonable business grounds. These included:
- The need for in-office collaboration to improve customer service
- Declining customer satisfaction metrics
- The nature of backline support work, which benefited from close, in-person coordination
Practical Takeaways
This decision underscores several key points for both employers and employees:
- Specificity matters: Employees must clearly link their request to a qualifying personal circumstance and explain why the change is necessary.
- Genuine engagement is required: Employers must discuss requests in good faith and explore reasonable alternatives.
- Reasonable business grounds remain a strong defence: Employers can lawfully refuse requests where flexibility would negatively affect productivity, cost, or customer service—provided they follow the statutory process.
Summary Checklist: Flexible Work Request Process
| Step | Action Required |
|---|---|
| 1. Written Request | Employee submits a written request identifying a qualifying circumstance (e.g., parental responsibilities). |
| 2. Link to Circumstance | Request must clearly explain how the change in working arrangements is connected to the qualifying circumstance. |
| 3. Employer Consideration | Employer must consider the request and discuss reasonable alternatives in good faith. |
| 4. Written Response | Employer must provide a written response within 21 days, stating whether the request is approved or refused. |
| 5. Reasonable Grounds | If refusing, employer must outline reasonable business grounds for refusal (e.g., impact on productivity, cost). |
Relevance to Spurling Legal Clients
At Spurling Legal, we regularly advise SMEs and professionals on workplace flexibility disputes, particularly where hybrid work arrangements are at stake. The Collins decision is a timely reminder that:
- a well-documented request process is critical; and
- disputes often turn not on fairness or intent, but on compliance with formal statutory criteria.
Final Thoughts
While flexible work is increasingly expected by employees, employers retain significant discretion—especially when requests do not meet the formal legal requirements. Clear communication, well-reasoned responses, and a genuine attempt at compromise remain the best path forward.
Need Advice on Flexible Work Policies or Disputes?
Reach out to Spurling Legal for tailored advice on employee rights, employer obligations, and best-practice policies under the Fair Work Act.
