Can Employers Refuse Flexible Work? The FWC Says Yes, Here’s What You Need to Know

When it comes to workplace flexibility, many view it as a straightforward question of fairness and culture: can an employee adjust their hours to accommodate personal commitments? But recent guidance from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) – specifically in the case of Gagandeep (Skye) Kaur v G8 Education Trading AS Jellybeans Childcare [2025] FWC 3396 – confirms that the answer is more nuanced. While employers are required to consider requests for flexible work, they are not required to grant them if there are legitimate, documented business reasons to refuse.

The Case

Mrs Kaur, a full-time diploma-qualified educator, had worked early shifts since joining her employer in 2023. Her request was simple: she asked to finish by 3:30pm each day so she could pick up her school-age children. The employer – G8 Education’s Jellybeans childcare arm – had recently completed a statewide operational review and shifted to a rotating roster model. Under this new roster, the centre had to maintain at least 50% diploma-qualified staff between 6:00am and 6:30pm; Mrs Kaur’s requested finish time conflicted with this requirement.

The employer offered Mrs Kaur three alternative roster options over a fortnight that attempted to balance early and late shifts across the team. Mrs Kaur declined. The employer argued it had reasonable business grounds under section 65A(3)(d) of the Fair Work Act 2009 – including child safety (qualified staff needed at opening and closing), compliance with legal staffing coverage, team equity (other employees also wanting early finishes), operational consistency, and cost implications of hiring extra staff. The Commission agreed and found in favour of the employer: Mrs Kaur’s request was refused on the basis of documented, genuine operational constraints.

Key take-aways for HR and businesses

For HR professionals advising clients or managing flexible work requests, this case provides several important lessons – and some “what we should check” moments.

1. Engagement is essential – but not sufficient.
   The employer in this case engaged with Mrs Kaur: it offered three alternatives and gave her genuine opportunity to participate in the rostering options. The fact that she declined was a factor. In flexible work law the request and response process must be genuine. But: even genuine engagement doesn’t mean the request must be granted if business grounds exist. The key lesson: document your conversations, your alternatives offered, your timetables and constraints.
2. Understand the business grounds defence.
   Section 65A(3)(d) allows refusal of a request where there are “reasonable business grounds”. This case illustrates how those grounds can include: legal/regulatory obligations (e.g., required ratio of qualified staff), safety issues (qualified staff at opening/closing), fairness among employees (others requesting similar), operational constraints (roster design and consistency) and cost/effort (hiring extra staff or restructuring). For a client: when denying a request, you must be able to articulate the specific ground(s) and show they are real and documented.
3. Flexibility isn’t one-way. A request that is rigid may fail.
   Mrs Kaur asked for finish by 3:30pm each day, no variability. The Commission accepted that this was too restrictive given the employer’s rostering needs. If an employee is asking for a “one-size-fits-me” roster without willingness to explore alternatives, the request is less likely to succeed. For advising clients: encourage employees to propose a range of workable options rather than a fixed single finish time. And encourage managers to respond with realistic alternatives.
4. Roster design must balance individual needs, team fairness and regulatory obligations.
   In this sector, maintaining the required ratio of qualified staff during key hours is an operational and regulatory obligation. The employer’s restructure to a rotating roster was part of that. For clients in other industries: even if you don’t face “50% qualified staff” mandated ratios, you may still have coverage, workload, service-delivery or client-facing constraints that justify a refusal. It’s critical to show there is a broader workforce or business plan reason not simply personal preference vs employer convenience.
5. Training managers and documenting the process matters.
   From an HR governance point of view: make sure your managers know how to process flexible work requests properly. That means: acknowledging the request in writing, discussing the operational constraints, offering alternatives, documenting the decision and the reasons for refusal (if it occurs). Having a template process and audit trail will assist in showing compliance if the issue is challenged.

What this means for you

When advising organisations (especially those with shift or roster-based operations, regulatory staffing ratios or client-service windows), this case emphasises that flexibility requests are not a free ticket to a fixed finish time. Employers can and must weigh individual needs alongside their operational and legal obligations. That means:

• Auditing your rosters and operational constraints so you can clearly articulate business grounds if you refuse a flexibility request.
• Reviewing your flexible work request policy and process: is it clear? Are alternatives discussed? Is refusal documented?
• Coaching supervisors to frame discussions around “what we can do” rather than a simple “no”. Offering workable alternatives strengthens your position.
• Encouraging employees to be realistic and collaborative in their requests: offering a range of possible arrangements rather than one fixed demand increases the chance of success for both parties.
• Monitoring the “fairness factor” among employees: if one person has a special roster and others with similar circumstances do not, or cannot – then you expose yourself to fairness and morale risk.

In summary

At its heart, flexible work is about mutual accommodation: individual need + business reality. The Kaur case reminds us that while the law supports flexibility, it also supports legitimate business needs. For HR professionals advising clients, this means preparing for both sides of the conversation: How can we meet the individual need? and What are our business constraints and how do we document them? By structuring that conversation properly you create a win–win culture, and, when required, you are in the strongest position to make a refusal decision that stands up to scrutiny.

If you need support managing flexible work requests, we have your back.

Written by Emily Jaksch