A Sydney mother has secured the legal right to continue working from home following a Fair Work Commission dispute with her employer, who she alleged pressured her to return to the office despite being aware of her caring responsibilities for a child with special needs.
Background of the case
Laura Kliffen, a support specialist at real estate software company Reapit, claimed she was directed to return to the company’s central business district office after working remotely for nearly a decade. Kliffen argued that the mandate was incompatible with her family situation, as she cares for two young children, including one with special needs, and is responsible for their daycare and school drop-offs.
Kliffen also highlighted that commuting from her home in Berowra Heights would require several hours on public transport each day. She expressed concerns that the significant change in her routine would severely impact her mental health and the wellbeing of her family, noting that her daughter had already exhibited increased anxiety and problematic behaviour due to Kliffen’s occasional office attendance.
Employer’s position
Reapit stated that it had shifted its business model to require all employees to work at least partly from the office to facilitate effective relationships, training, communications, and awareness. The company also pointed out that Kliffen had attended a social lawn bowls event but had not been seen in the office.
In response, Kliffen noted that of the 11 people on her team, six had hybrid arrangements, including three based in Manila, two in Brisbane, and one in Sydney. Four team members worked fully remotely, including two from Sydney, one from the Sunshine Coast, and one from Melbourne.
Reapit argued that Kliffen was trying to avoid the cost, time, and personal inconvenience of commuting, and claimed there would be a significant loss in efficiency if she continued working exclusively from home, despite her having worked remotely since 2017 with no negative impact on her performance.
Fair Work Commission decision
The Fair Work Commission ultimately sided with Kliffen. The order, effective from June this year, permits Kliffen to work from home and requires her to attend the Sydney office only one day per fortnight. She is also allowed to start work later to accommodate school and daycare drop-offs.
In the decision, the Commission accepted that Kliffen had genuine reasons for her requested arrangement. It acknowledged that while face-to-face interactions may offer benefits, only a small number of her team members are based in Sydney. The decision further stated that although the employer may desire consistent working practices across all employees, individual circumstances differ, and some attract rights under the Fair Work Act. An outcome that is fair may involve extending additional support and flexibility to employees in certain circumstances.
