Section 65A(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), outlines the non-exhaustive list of reasonable business grounds that employers may consider when refusing a flexible working arrangement request, most commonly considering the cost, practicality and capacity of the employer to accommodate the request.
In the recent decision of Kaur v G8 Education Trading AS Jellybeans Childcare [2025] FWC 3396, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) found that the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse the employee’s flexible working arrangement request, accepting that the arrangement would have raised “equity and fairness” issues in the business.
The employee is a full-time, diploma-qualified early childhood educator employed at one of the childcare centres owned by G8 Education, Trading as Jellybeans Childcare (the Employer).
In late 2024, the Employer conducted a statewide review of its safety procedures and legal obligations regarding minimum staffing requirements, including a requirement that at least half of its onsite staff must be diploma-qualified during operating hours.
Following this review, the Employer decided to implement a rotational roster system to comply with these legal obligations. As part of these operational changes, the employee’s roster changed from finishing at 3pm or 3:30pm each day to finishing anytime from 5pm to 6:30pm.
The employee sought a flexible working arrangement under section 65 of the FW Act to commence work at either 7am or 7:30am and finish work at 3pm or 3:30pm each day, owing to her carer responsibilities for her two school-aged children.
The employee later submitted to the FWC that the requested arrangement reflected her previous informal agreement with her manager to finish work at 3pm or 3:30pm, which was based on her availability and family responsibilities.
The Employer denied the employee’s request for the following reasons:
The Employer offered the employee three different alternative roster arrangements which it argued balanced the employee’s circumstances and the Employer’s operational requirements.
The employee did not agree to any of the Employer’s alternative arrangements and subsequently lodged an application with FWC to resolve the flexible working arrangement dispute.
The FWC considered the dispute and ultimately found that the above reasons provided by the Employer were reasonable business grounds to refuse the employee’s request.
The FWC noted that the purpose of the Employer implementing the rotating roster was to comply with its legal minimum staffing requirements to ensure at least half of its staff on site are diploma-qualified during operating hours.
The FWC explained that it was reasonable to conclude that accommodating the employee’s request would likely have incurred additional costs to the Employer to continue complying with its legal obligations, including:
It was evident that the Employer had considered the employee’s circumstances and attempted to accommodate her request by proposing alternative arrangements, and it was clear that the Employer had no further capacity to alter the rosters.
The FWC also noted that it was “reasonable and logical” that the employee’s requested arrangement to finish at 3pm or 3:30pm would have been favourable and of interest to several other employees who also had family and childcare commitments.
The FWC accepted that allowing the employee’s request could have resulted in tension and given rise to other workplace issues concerning “equity and fairness within the business” if the Employer had accommodated the employee’s request.
Therefore, the FWC concluded that the Employer had reasonable business grounds to deny the flexible working arrangement request and dismissed the application.
Flexible working arrangements are intended to support an employee’s circumstances, provided the employer is reasonably able to accommodate them. In this decision, the FWC found employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request because allowing the employee’s request may have opened the employer up to subsequent problems within the business.
When all is said and done, it maybe the case that it is just not operationally possible for the employer to accommodate the flexible working arrangement request.
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.
