A Melbourne-based software engineer has lost an unfair dismissal case after he was fired for refusing to return to the office.

Richard Johnson worked as a product engineer at print management software provider PaperCut Software from April 2022 until mid-June 2025, when he was fired for refusing to comply with a three days per week return-to-office policy, according to a Fair Work Commission decision published on Monday.

Johnson took the matter to the commission and argued the direction to return to the office was unlawful and unreasonable, making his dismissal for not complying with it unfair.

But this was rejected by the commission, which found the tech worker’s refusal to adopt a hybrid work situation was an adequate reason for his dismissal, and PaperCut’s workplace policy was lawful and reasonable.

Refusing a return-to-office mandate

Johnson was hired by PaperCut on a contract including terms that he must “comply with such reasonable and lawful directions and all policies rules and regulations from time to time provided by PaperCut”, and that he was “permitted” to work from a personal residence “in line with relevant PaperCut policy”.

The contract also stated “the employee may be required to work at other locations from time to time”.

At the time he was hired, PaperCut allowed its employees to work from home or the office as they wished.

The company has between 200 and 500 employees, according to its LinkedIn profile.

After the Victorian government removed its work-from-home recommendation during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2022, PaperCut began a hybrid work trial, and then developed and implemented a return-to-office plan under a hybrid model.

This scheme was formally introduced in August 2023, with a staged transition seeing all employees working three days per week from the office by the start of 2025.

The Fair Work Commission heard that in August 2022, PaperCut attempted to vary Johnson’s contract to clarify that his place of employment was the office and his home, but he did not agree to this.

Johnson had a new manager by 2024, and in December of that year he was told the company was changing his work location from home to the office from the start of 2025, according to the commission’s decision documents.

Johnson claimed this was in breach of his employment contract and refused to attend the office three days per week, the FWC heard.

PaperCut issued the software engineer with a “final warning” in May 2025, saying Johnson risked being fired if he did not attend the office three times per week over the next three weeks.

On 19 June, his employment at PaperCut was terminated.

Not disproportionate or harsh, commission finds

Johnson argued to the commission that he was unfairly dismissed because the demand he return to the office was “disproportionate and harsh”.

PaperCut argued Johnson had been provided a lawful and reasonable direction to work from the office, and he had been given ample time and opportunity to respond.

It told the commission its hybrid work policy was “reasonable and soundly based on the needs of the business” and it was “developed in consultation with staff and implemented through a staged transition”.

Fair Work Commissioner Scott Connolly found the return-to-office mandate was a lawful direction, and Johnson did not have an unconditional right to work from home in his contract.

“Working from home is something PaperCut ‘allowed’ him to do,” Connolly said in his decision.

“It was not, however, as Mr Johnson believed, a ‘right’ he was entitled to without caveat.”

The commissioner ruled Johnson’s dismissal was not unlawful, and he did not have to be reinstated, as he had sought.

Both Johnson and PaperCut were contacted for comment.

Several Australian workers have gone to the commission over work-from-home requests that had been denied, with varying levels of success.

In November 2023 a remote work request was knocked back when the commission found it was “desirable” to have employees at the office for productivity and support.

In early 2025 an employee won an extra day working from home to care for his child after the commission rejected an argument that it would create “distractions”.

Westpac was also ordered to allow an employee to work from home permanently after the commission ruled it did not have reasonable grounds to refuse their request to do so.