Resources: Blogs

It’s all about me


Employer reasonable in not accommodating employee’s variation of hours request

One of the logistical challenges often faced by employers is the management of rosters and employee working hours. There are a number of factors to take into consideration when it comes to this.

One of the logistical challenges often faced by employers is the management of rosters and employee working hours. There are a number of factors to take into consideration when it comes to this, such as an employee’s availability, changing circumstances and the particular needs of the business.

It can be difficult for employers to balance these interests but a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has shown support for employers who make reasonable attempts to accommodate any changes in an employee’s availability – even if they are unable to accommodate all changes exactly as the employee requests.

In Bromley-Hoult v Belgravia Health & Leisure Group T/A Ascot Value Leisure Centre [2018] FWC 4979, the FWC considered an employee’s claim that she was forced to resign from her role as a Customer Service Operator at a leisure centre because her employer did not accept her request to vary her working hours after she enrolled in university.

The employee worked in two roles from Mondays to Fridays – 15 hours per week as a Program Coordinator and 18.25 hours per week in Customer Service.

In January 2018, the employee advised her employer that she had enrolled in university and could no longer work on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The employee proposed an alternate arrangement in which she would work Wednesday evenings, Thursdays and Fridays, with the majority of her work to be performed in the more senior (and higher paid) Program Coordinator role.

The employer instead offered to maintain the employee’s current Customer Service hours as well as provide her with additional hours in that Customer Service role. The reason for doing so was that the programs that required coordination only operated on the days on which the employee was now unavailable. It would therefore be pointless for the employee to be coordinating programs when there were no participants to coordinate.

The employee subsequently resigned from her employment and, in her claim for unfair dismissal, argued that she had been forced to resign because her employer had refused to allow her to continue to work as a Program Coordinator.

The employer argued that it had not dismissed the employee, rather she had voluntarily resigned.

The FWC agreed with the employer. It found that the situation arose as a result of the employee unilaterally seeking to vary her contracted hours and the days on which she performed those hours. The employer’s refusal to accept the variation was reasonable because the change in the employee’s availability meant that she could no longer fulfil the role of a Program Coordinator.

The FWC considered that the employment relationship came to an end because the employee was dissatisfied with the employer’s response to her variation request and the employer had not forced the employee to resign.

Accordingly, because the employee resigned from her employment and it was not a forced resignation, the employee was not entitled to make a claim for unfair dismissal.

Lessons for employers

When an employee approaches their employer to advise of a change in their availability for work, it is important for the employer to consider a range of factors before making any decision to vary the employee’s hours of work. Factors to consider should include the reasons for the change, the employer’s ability to accommodate the change and the particular needs of the business. However, employers are not compelled to agree to vary working hours where there are legitimate reasons to decline the variation.

The reasons for an employer’s decision either way should be communicated to the employee clearly and without delay to minimise any risk of misunderstanding.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.


Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.


Employee’s exaggerated complaints created psychosocial risk

False alarm

Employers have work health and safety obligations to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks in the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable. These risks arise from psychosocial hazards including conflict or poor workplace relationships.


First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.


Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.