School Drop off Challenges WFH “Balance”

Flexible working arrangements have become one of the defining features of Australia’s modern employment landscape. Yet as recent decisions of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) demonstrate, the practical limits of flexibility continue to be tested where operational expectations collide with the realities of employee caregiving responsibilities.

In Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1766, the Commission was required to resolve precisely that tension. The case concerned a working parent seeking to preserve a long-standing remote work arrangement in the face of an employer’s shift toward increased office attendance. While the dispute itself arose from a single flexible work request, it reflects a broader recalibration of how “reasonableness” is assessed in hybrid work environments.

The Applicant, a part-time training and support team leader, had worked exclusively from home since 2017. This was an arrangement that continued following a transfer of business in 2023. However, when her employer introduced a policy requiring employees to attend the Sydney CBD office two days per week, that arrangement was placed under strain. What might otherwise appear to be a relatively modest change in working conditions became a significant disruption when viewed against the Applicant’s personal circumstances.

Central to the dispute were the Applicant’s caring responsibilities. As the mother of two young children, including one with support needs, her daily routine was structured around managing school drop-offs and behavioural challenges that required consistency and predictability. Evidence from a paediatrician confirmed that disruptions to established routines could exacerbate those challenges. The Commission accepted that even relatively minor changes to start times and commuting patterns had the capacity to produce disproportionate impacts in this context.

Compounding these challenges was the practical reality of the Applicant’s commute. Travelling from Berowra Heights to Sydney’s CBD, a journey of approximately 90 minutes each way, significantly reduced her capacity to manage both morning and evening caregiving responsibilities. Her husband’s early start time further limited flexibility within the household, effectively placing primary responsibility for school drop-offs and evening care on the Applicant.

Against this backdrop, the employer advanced familiar arguments. It contended that requiring office attendance was necessary to support organisational culture, team cohesion and effective training. These considerations, frequently relied upon in post-pandemic return-to-office policies, were acknowledged by the Commission as legitimate in principle. However, their persuasive force diminished when examined in the specific operational context. Only a small proportion of the Applicant’s team was based in Sydney, meaning that digital communication would remain a central feature of the role irrespective of her physical presence in office.

In this sense, the dispute illustrates a growing judicial scepticism toward broad, generalised assertions about workplace culture. While face-to-face interaction is recognised as beneficial, the Commission critically examined whether the marginal benefit of requiring attendance one or two days per week was sufficient to justify the disruption imposed on the Applicant. In this case, it was not.

Importantly, however, the Commission did not accept that the Applicant was entitled to work exclusively from home. Consistent with the statutory framework, it recognised that employers retain the capacity to refuse flexible work requests on reasonable business grounds. What followed instead was a carefully calibrated outcome that reflects the increasingly nuanced role the Commission plays in these disputes.

The final orders required the Applicant to attend the office only once per fortnight, with the remaining working days to be performed remotely. Even this limited attendance was subject to modification: she was permitted to commence work as late as 10:30 am on office days to accommodate school drop-off responsibilities, with any shortfall in hours to be made up across the fortnight.

This “middle ground” outcome highlights a broader shift in how flexible work disputes are resolved. Rather than approaching such matters as binary questions, whether a request should be granted or refused, the Commission is increasingly willing to impose structured, hybrid arrangements that balance competing interests. Flexibility, in this sense, is no longer a static entitlement but a negotiated and, where necessary, arbitrated equilibrium.

For employers, the decision reinforces that policies mandating office attendance cannot operate in isolation from individual circumstances. Assertions of business necessity must be supported by evidence demonstrating a tangible operational impact, particularly where roles are already performed in geographically dispersed or digitally integrated teams. More broadly, the case highlights the risk of adopting uniform return-to-office policies without sufficient flexibility to accommodate employees with heightened personal obligations.

For employees, the decision illustrates the evidentiary threshold required to succeed in flexible work disputes. The Applicant’s success was underpinned by detailed and credible evidence, including medical reports and a clear articulation of how the proposed changes would affect her daily responsibilities. It confirms that while the statutory right to request flexible work is not absolute, it remains a meaningful avenue for employees facing genuine constraints.

Ultimately, the significance of the decision lies not in the specific arrangement ordered, but in what it reveals about the evolving nature of workplace regulation. As hybrid work becomes entrenched, disputes of this kind are increasingly less about location and more about proportionality. How far an employer’s operational preferences should extend when weighed against the lived realities of its workforce.

In that context, Kliffen stands as a clear reminder that “balance” is not merely rhetorical. It is a legal standard that the Fair Work Commission is both willing and equipped to define.

If you have questions about how this decision may affect you as an employee or employer, please contact Nick Stevens, Evelyn Rivera, Ayla Hutchison or Dragana Prtenjak.