An employee will only be eligible to request flexible working arrangements if their request for changed arrangements is “because of” one of the prescribed circumstances set out under section 65(1A) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
A frequently cited prescribed circumstance is where an employee is a parent, or has the responsibility for the care, of a child who is of school age or younger. In such cases, the employee must be able to demonstrate a “cause-and-effect” relationship between their requested arrangements and their parental responsibilities.
The connection between an employee’s request for flexible working arrangements and their personal circumstances was recently considered by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in the decision of Hutchinson v Cleanco Queensland Ltd [2025] FWC 2887.
The employee is employed by Cleanco Queensland Ltd (the Employer) as a full-time Utility Trade Worker.
In September 2024, the employee requested flexible working arrangements that allowed him to work from home every second week. The request was made after the employee had relocated his family from Tully to Townsville, approximately 200km away from the workplace. However, after the employee’s son had a traumatic experience at a school in Townsville, the employee moved back to Tully with his son, while his wife stayed in Townsville with their daughter. The request was to allow the employee to settle his son at his new school near Tully.
The Employer temporarily approved the request for a two-month period, ending in December 2024.
In February 2025, the employee applied for a second flexible working arrangement. This time, the employee requested to work from home in Townsville one week a month to assist his wife and support the needs of his children. Before the FWC, the employee submitted that the purpose of this request was so that he could spend one week of the month with his daughter in Townsville, while his wife would switch with him and live with their son in Tully.
The Employer denied the request and proposed an alternative arrangement for the employee to work remotely for a maximum of two weeks in any six-month period. In coming to this decision, the Employer cited the following grounds:
The employee did not accept the Employer’s proposed alternative arrangements, and following unsuccessful attempts to resolve the dispute internally, the employee lodged an application to the FWC to deal with a dispute.
The FWC found that the employee’s request for flexible working arrangements was not validly made because his requested arrangements were not “because of” one of the prescribed circumstances under section 65(1A) of the FW Act.
The FWC stated at [35]:
“Because of” connotes a cause-and-effect relationship where the employee’s circumstances under s.65(1A) are an operative reason for making the request. It is not enough to simply have children and to desire to spend more time with them during the week. The purpose of the flexible working arrangement provisions under the Act is not to promote a “work-life balance”.
The FWC stated that for an employee’s parental responsibilities to give rise to an entitlement to make a request for flexible working arrangements, the employee must be able to articulate how the requested arrangements are related to the specific care needs of their children.
While the employee was a parent of school aged children, the FWC was not satisfied that his request to work from home one week each month was because of those circumstances. The employee referring to having children and stating that his request would allow him to “support” his children’s needs did not provide a sufficient nexus between the request and his personal circumstances.
Rather, the FWC found that the operative reason for the employee’s request was that his family was split between Tully and Townsville and he wanted to spend more time with his family in Townsville, which was not a relevant circumstance under section 65(1A) of the FW Act. The FWC stated at [37]:
The decision to separate the family between Tully and Townsville was not one which was made by the [Employer]. The [Employer] is not obliged to accede to an FWA request to accommodate a personal choice for where the [employee’s] family chose to reside.
Finding that employee’s request for flexible working arrangements was not “because of” the employee’s circumstances under section 65(1A) of the FW Act, the FWC held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute and dismissed the application.
Although the FWC was not required to consider the remaining issues in dispute, for completeness, it found that the Employer had complied with the requirements for responding to flexible working arrangements and that it had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request.
This decision provides some useful guidance to employers when considering if an employee is eligible to request flexible working arrangements.
It is not sufficient for one of the circumstances under section 65(1A) of the FW Act to apply to an employee. In this decision, the fact that the employee has children and wanted to spend more time with his children was not sufficient reason to satisfy the FWC that his request to work from home one week each month was “because of” those circumstances.
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.
