Resources: Blogs

Lawful but not reasonable


Employer unreasonably ends Bryon Bay “work from home” arrangement

Employees have an implied duty to obey their employer’s reasonable and lawful directions. Whilst employers cannot direct an employee to engage in conduct which is unlawful, the reasonableness of an employer’s direction will depend on the individual circumstances.

Employees have an implied duty to obey their employer’s reasonable and lawful directions. Whilst employers cannot direct an employee to engage in conduct which is unlawful, the reasonableness of an employer’s direction will depend on the individual circumstances.

In Parkes v Fat Prophets Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 6121, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) held that an employer’s “unreasonable ultimatum” to an employee that he relocate to Sydney or lose his job was a lawful but not reasonable direction.

The employee had relocated to Byron Bay from Sydney in or about August 2016 after his wife secured employment in Byron Bay. At the time, the employee and the employer agreed to an arrangement where the employee could work remotely from his new home in Byron Bay.

Unfortunately for the employer, no formal written arrangement was entered into between the parties about the terms of the work from home arrangement.

The employer contended that the arrangement was only temporary until its Gold Coast office opened in early 2017, after which the employee would work from this office.

In March 2017, the employer undertook a review of its business structure and abandoned its plans to open an office on the Gold Coast. It determined that the employee’s work from home arrangement would not continue.

On 30 March 2017, the employer held a meeting by telephone with the employee to discuss the arrangements. The contents and nature of this discussion were disputed by both parties.

The employer maintained that the employee was advised during the meeting that the working from home arrangement could not continue and that he was to return to Sydney. The employer claimed that the employee did not want to discuss returning and that he had insisted he was not returning to Sydney and resigned from his employment.

The employee denied the employer issued him with a direction to return to Sydney. He alleged that he was advised that his employment had been terminated and relied on a text message exchange and a termination letter, which had been sent the following day indicating that his employment had been terminated. The employee argued that he was not given an opportunity to respond to any issues about the work from home arrangement.

The FWC determined that the work from home arrangement was a temporary and not permanent arrangement. The FWC was also satisfied that the employee was dismissed from his employment, noting that the employer’s letter of termination referred to issuing the employee with notice and stating that the termination of employment was effective 31 March 2017.

Having found that the employee’s employment had been terminated, the FWC held that there was not a valid reason for the termination. The FWC held that while the direction to relocate from Byron Bay to Sydney was a lawful direction, it was not a reasonable direction; it was manifestly unreasonable as the employee was given little or no notice to relocate to Sydney.

Accordingly, the FWC determined that as the employee was dismissed without notice or warning, any reason for dismissal was invalid and ultimately the termination of his employment was “harsh, unjust and unreasonable”.

The FWC ordered the employer to pay $8,350.38 in compensation to the employee.


Lessons for employers

This decision highlights to employers what will be considered a “reasonable and lawful” direction to employees. In this matter, the FWC held that the employer should have allowed the employee a reasonable period in which to consider and advise whether or not he was willing to relocate, and then agree to a reasonable period of time for the employee to physically relocate, together with payment of relocation expenses.

The decision is also a reminder to employers about recording individual working arrangements in writing. The FWC commented:

Given what has transpired, the absence of a document, recording the discussion at the time – let alone a written agreement or exchange of letters – is regrettable. Relying on recollection or indirect language in conversations, about such a significant matter, is to be very much discouraged as poor industrial relations practice.

This will be particularly relevant if the arrangement is intended to be for a temporary or trial period.


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.


Hold the Line! - Restraints & Employment Contracts

Workplace Law's Managing Director, Athena Koelmeyer, will guide you through the legal minefield of post-employment restraints.


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.


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.