Westpac has backed its return-to-office policy as the “right balance” and does not plan to make any changes to it, despite a recent Fair Work Commission that the bank did not have reasonable grounds to deny a young mother’s work-from-home (WFH) request.

Westpac chief executive Anthony Miller publicly threw his support behind the policy of mandating two or three days per week in the office for his employees, and the bank in a statement to Information Age reiterated this stance.

This is despite a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling in late October that the bank did not have reasonable grounds to refuse a worker’s request to work from home full-time due to this return-to-office mandate.

The FWC decision showed that a worker’s valid request to work from home under industrial rights law must be judged under individual circumstances, and employers cannot rely on vague notions of productivity and collaboration alone.

‘The right balance’

At Westpac’s full year financial presentation this week, chief executive Anthony Miller said the business would land on its response to the FWC decision in the coming weeks, but that it did not plan to make any changes to its office policies.

“We have one of the most flexible work-from-home policy positions in the marketplace,” Miller said in response to a question from the media.

“What we are going after, which is finding that balance for our people, I think we’ve got that right.

“No, I don’t feel the need to change that particular setting.

“We’re reflecting on what we might do in response to that work-from-home decision from the FWC.”

Miller did not provide an answer as to whether more Westpac employees had filed work-from-home requests following the FWC ruling.

In a statement to Information Age, a spokesperson for Westpac said the mandate that employees work at least two days per week in the office “ensures meaningful collaboration within teams while providing flexibility to work from home”.

“We believe our current approach of two-to-three days per week in the office strikes the right balance for our people and customers,” the spokesperson told Information Age.

“Westpac has a large, diverse workforce and our policies remain consistent with the Westpac Group Enterprise Agreement.

“Westpac is considering the ruling.”

‘Balance for the bank, not for the people’

The Finance Sector Union hit back after the comments, saying that if the return-to-office balance was right, the “bank wouldn’t have just lost a landmark decision”.

“Westpac keeps talking about ‘balance’, but that balance only works for the bank, not for the people being forced back into the office against their circumstances,” Finance Sector Union assistant national secretary Nicole McPherson told Information Age.

“Flexible work arrangements should be decided based on a worker’s individual circumstances and situation – it shouldn’t just be denied because an employer has an office mandate or policy in place.

“Employers should know they aren’t adhering to their legal responsibilities and obligations if they don’t genuinely consider a flexible work arrangement request.”

McPherson said the FWC decision should be a “wake-up call for every finance sector employer”.

“Bosses across the industry need to review their flexible work policies now, or risk being next before the Commission,” she said.

Individual considerations

The FWC case related to a Westpac employee who had young twin daughters, and had requested to work from home five days per week to tend to caring duties and school drop off and pick up.

This was denied by Westpac, with the employee then taking the case to the FWC under the Labor government’s new industrial relations laws.

These laws state that a worker can make a flexible working arrangement request if they have been employed for at least one year, are a parent or carer, have a disability, are 55 years old or older, pregnant or experiencing domestic and family violence.

At the FWC, Westpac argued that having workers in the office improves collaboration and productivity, and allows for meaningful engagement.

But the FWC found that while there were some benefits to having employees in the office, the consequences of not allowing the worker flexible work were “seriously prejudicial for the applicant and her family”.

It found that return-to-office mandates must allow for flexibility and consider individual circumstances of workers, and that a business must have reasonable grounds to deny an employee’s request for flexible work.