Flexible Work Requests: The Biggest Risk For Employers Isn’t The Work From Home Bill

Every time a new workplace law hits the headlines, employers tend to have the same reaction.

A mixture of:

“What does this mean?”

“How much is this going to cost?”

And occasionally:

“Please tell me this isn’t another thing I have to deal with.”

The proposed Victorian Work From Home Bill has certainly generated plenty of discussion.

Business owners are worried. HR teams are fielding questions. LinkedIn has become a battleground between people who think working from home is the greatest workplace innovation since email and those who believe civilisation peaked when everyone sat in a cubicle five days a week.

But after recently hosting a webinar with employment lawyer Liz Aitken, we came away with a different concern.

The biggest risk isn’t the legislation.

The biggest risk is the number of employers still making flexible work decisions based on preference, habit or gut feel.

Because when an employee requests flexibility, the legal question is rarely:

“Did you say yes or no?”

It’s:

“How did you make that decision?”

And that’s where many businesses are vulnerable.

Why Employers Are Asking The Wrong Question

Whenever flexible work comes up, employers tend to ask the same thing:

“Can I refuse a work from home request?”

It’s a reasonable question.

But it’s probably not the most important one.

A better question is:

“Can I explain and defend the decision I made?”

Because in our experience, employers rarely get themselves into trouble simply because they said no.

They get themselves into trouble because they said no inconsistently.

Or emotionally.

Or without any real process.

Or because a manager responded to a request with:

“Yeah, nah. We don’t really do that here.”

That might feel like a quick response.

It’s not a particularly good strategy.

The reality is that flexible work disputes are rarely about the word “no”.

They’re about the reasoning behind it.

If an employer can demonstrate they genuinely assessed a request, considered alternatives, reviewed operational impacts and documented their decision, they are in a much stronger position than an employer whose decision-making process begins and ends with personal preference.

The Law Is Already Here

One of the most interesting themes from our recent webinar was that many employers are treating the Victorian Work From Home Bill as if it introduces a completely new concept.

It doesn’t.

Flexible work isn’t new.

Work from home requests aren’t new.

Reasonable adjustments aren’t new.

The reality is that employers have been dealing with these issues for years through a range of existing legal frameworks.

Depending on the circumstances, a request to work from home could involve:

• Flexible work provisions under the Fair Work Act
• Anti-discrimination obligations
• Reasonable adjustment requirements
• Work health and safety obligations
• Workers compensation risks
• Privacy and confidentiality considerations

That’s why we keep saying the legislation isn’t the whole story.

The legal landscape is already complicated.

The proposed Victorian legislation is simply adding another layer to a conversation that employers should already be having.

If you’re still trying to understand what the proposed legislation actually says, who may be eligible and what obligations could apply to employers, we’ve broken it down in our blog:

👉 Victorian Work From Home Laws 2026

https://hrgurus.com.au/victorian-work-from-home-laws-2026

This article focuses on something different.

The practical risk that exists whether the legislation passes or not.

Your Position Descriptions Are Probably Terrible

Sorry.

Someone had to say it.

Most businesses haven’t reviewed their position descriptions in years.

Many were copied from old templates.

Some haven’t been updated since before COVID.

Others contain enough vague language to apply equally to a receptionist, an HR manager and a part-time llama wrangler.

The problem is that position descriptions suddenly become very important when you’re trying to explain why someone needs to be physically present at work.

If an employee asks to work from home two days a week and your position description says little more than:

“Other duties as directed”

you’re probably going to have a difficult time explaining why attendance is essential.

A strong position description should clearly identify:

• Inherent requirements of the role
• Physical attendance requirements
• Client or customer interaction responsibilities
• Supervision obligations
• Confidentiality requirements
• Technology and equipment needs

Because if those things genuinely matter, they shouldn’t appear for the first time after a dispute starts.

One of the strongest messages from our webinar was that position descriptions are becoming increasingly important evidence.

Not administration.

Evidence.

That’s a very different way of looking at them.

Your Policy Isn’t The Problem. Your Managers Might Be.

Most organisations have policies.

Many have really good policies.

The challenge is that policies don’t make decisions.

People do.

And people are wonderfully inconsistent.

An employee says:

“My anxiety is making the commute difficult.”

A manager hears:

“They want to work from home.”

A lawyer hears:

“Potential reasonable adjustment request.”

Those are very different conversations.

One of the biggest risks we see isn’t malicious decision-making.

It’s managers not recognising when a workplace conversation has moved into legal territory.

An employee mentions caring responsibilities.

A health condition.

A disability.

A mental health challenge.

A family violence situation.

Suddenly what looked like a simple flexibility discussion may involve obligations under multiple legal frameworks.

This is why manager capability matters.

A lot.

You can have the best flexible work policy in Australia.

If your manager responds with:

“That’s not my problem.”

you’ve potentially created a much bigger issue.

Winging It Is No Longer A Workplace Strategy

For years, many organisations managed flexibility based on instinct.

One employee was approved.

Another was refused.

A third was approved because they had a more understanding manager.

A fourth was refused because their manager liked seeing full desks.

That approach might have worked when flexible work was rare.

It doesn’t work anymore.

Employees expect flexibility.

Candidates ask about it during recruitment.

Managers deal with it every week.

Tribunals increasingly expect employers to explain their decisions.

And nobody is particularly impressed by a decision-making framework that can be summarised as:

“It depends.”

Good employers are moving away from ad hoc decisions and towards structured assessment.

That doesn’t mean approving every request.

It means evaluating requests consistently.

It means documenting decisions.

It means considering alternatives.

It means being able to demonstrate that you genuinely assessed the circumstances rather than reacting emotionally.

Not Sure How Your Business Would Handle A Work From Home Request Tomorrow?

That’s exactly the problem many employers are facing.

The legislation may be new.

The requests aren’t.

Our WFH Toolkit helps businesses create a consistent process for assessing:

✔ Flexible work requests

✔ Hybrid work arrangements

✔ Work from home requests

✔ Reasonable adjustment requests

✔ Manager decision-making

Get The Toolkit

If you are a member or retainer client you get it for free visit our Circle Portal and log in.

Why One Request Can Trigger Multiple Legal Obligations

One of the biggest misconceptions we see is that a work from home request is simply a work from home request.

Often it isn’t.

An employee might say:

“I need to work from home because of my anxiety.”

Another might say:

“I need flexibility because I’m caring for my elderly parent.”

A third might simply want to avoid the commute.

On the surface, those requests may look similar.

Legally, they can be very different.

One request may involve:

• Flexible work provisions under the Fair Work Act
• Reasonable adjustment obligations
• Anti-discrimination protections
• WHS obligations
• Workers compensation considerations

This is why employers need a framework rather than a collection of disconnected policies.

The challenge is not simply deciding whether somebody can work from home.

The challenge is understanding which legal obligations apply before making that decision.

As Liz Aitken highlighted during our webinar, one request can engage multiple legal frameworks simultaneously. That’s often where employers become overwhelmed. Not because the law is impossible to understand, but because they don’t have a consistent process for assessing requests.

The Employers Who Will Struggle Most

Contrary to what some people think, the employers most exposed aren’t necessarily the employers who require people to attend the workplace.

Many businesses have perfectly legitimate reasons for doing that.

The employers most likely to struggle are those relying on preference rather than evidence.

For example:

“I think people collaborate better in the office.”

Maybe.

Can you demonstrate it?

“Our culture is stronger when people are together.”

Possibly.

How are you measuring that?

“People are more productive when I can see them.”

Are they?

The challenge isn’t having a view.

The challenge is supporting that view with evidence.

Increasingly, that’s where decisions will stand or fall.

And before anyone rushes to rewrite every position description to include the words “must attend the office”, that’s not the point either.

Tribunals and regulators aren’t interested in what you’ve written down if it doesn’t reflect reality.

The real question is whether attendance genuinely serves an operational purpose.

Parliament Isn’t The Real Deadline

A lot of businesses are watching Victoria closely.

Fair enough.

The legislation is attracting attention and generating plenty of debate.

But employees aren’t waiting for Parliament.

They’re already asking for flexibility.

They’re already requesting hybrid arrangements.

They’re already raising health concerns, caring responsibilities and work-life balance issues.

The requests are here.

The expectations are here.

The legal risks are already here.

Whether the Victorian legislation passes, changes, gets delayed or is challenged, employers still need a way to assess these requests properly.

That’s why we believe the conversation should be less about predicting what legislators will do and more about improving how decisions are made today.

Because when a dispute eventually arises, the question is rarely:

“Did you say yes or no?”

The question is usually:

“How did you reach that decision?”

And that’s where many employers discover they have a process problem, not a policy problem.

Frequently Asked Questions About Flexible Work Requests

Can employers refuse a flexible work request?

Potentially, yes.

However, employers should have lawful and evidence-based reasons for doing so. Decisions based purely on personal preference are far more difficult to defend than decisions supported by operational requirements, customer needs, supervision obligations or confidentiality concerns.

What is a reasonable work from home request?

There is no single definition.

The reasonableness of a request will often depend on factors such as the nature of the role, operational requirements, customer interaction, supervision needs, technology requirements and the employee’s individual circumstances.

Do employers have to approve hybrid work arrangements?

Not necessarily.

Employers may be able to refuse or modify proposed arrangements where there are genuine operational reasons for doing so. The key issue is whether the decision has been properly assessed and documented.

What is the difference between a flexible work request and a reasonable adjustment request?

A flexible work request is typically made under workplace relations legislation.

A reasonable adjustment request is usually connected to disability, medical conditions, mental health or caring responsibilities and may engage anti-discrimination obligations.

The distinction is important because different legal obligations can apply.

Why are position descriptions important when assessing flexible work?

Position descriptions help employers identify the inherent requirements of a role.

If physical attendance, supervision, customer interaction or confidentiality are genuinely important, those requirements should be clearly reflected in the position description before a request arises.

What should employers do now?

Employers should review their:

• Flexible work policies
• Position descriptions
• Manager training
• Decision-making frameworks
• Documentation processes

The goal is not to automatically approve or refuse requests.

The goal is to make consistent, defensible decisions.

The Real Issue Isn’t Working From Home

One of the most interesting observations from our webinar was that the conversation kept drifting away from the proposed legislation.

Every time we talked about the bill, we eventually ended up talking about something else.

Manager capability.

Documentation.

Position descriptions.

Consistency.

Decision-making.

That’s because most flexible work disputes aren’t really about where somebody works.

They’re about how decisions are made.

The businesses that will navigate this well won’t necessarily be the businesses offering the most flexibility.

And they won’t necessarily be the businesses requiring the most attendance.

They’ll be the businesses that can demonstrate a clear, consistent and evidence-based process.

Because legislation will change.

Workplace expectations will continue to evolve.

New cases will emerge.

But one thing is unlikely to change.

Employers will continue to be asked:

“Why did you make that decision?”

Having a good answer to that question is becoming one of the most important workforce capabilities a business can build.

Ready To Build A Defensible Flexible Work Framework?

HR Gurus has developed a practical Flexible Work Toolkit to help employers assess requests consistently, document decisions properly and reduce risk.

The toolkit includes:

✔ Flexible Work Policy

✔ Role Assessment Matrix

✔ Decision-Making Framework

✔ Manager Guidance

✔ Response Templates

✔ Documentation Tools

Whether you’re preparing for legislative change, reviewing your current hybrid work arrangements or simply trying to create more consistency across your business, the toolkit provides a practical framework you can implement immediately.

Access the Flexible Work Toolkit

Further Reading

Victorian Work From Home Laws 2026
https://hrgurus.com.au/victorian-work-from-home-laws-2026

Fair Work Flexible Working Arrangements
https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/flexibility-in-the-workplace/flexible-working-arrangements

Safe Work Australia
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au

Australian Human Rights Commission
https://humanrights.gov.au