The Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025 defines a new category—'work from home up to 2 days request'—and alters the Fair Work Act’s flexible work request framework to treat those requests differently from other flexible work requests. For those specific requests the employer may only refuse on the narrow ground that the change would make performance of the role’s inherent requirements impractical or impossible; the employer must 'genuinely engage' with the employee and consider reasonable adjustments.
The bill also expands the Fair Work Commission’s remedial role: the FWC can make orders that effectively determine whether the employer’s ground for refusal is made out, and those determinations are treated as having legal effect. The amendments apply prospectively to requests made on or after commencement, and they shift compliance risk and practical decision-making toward employers, HR teams and the FWC while creating a clearer—if narrower—entitlement for many employees seeking hybrid work.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a specific category of request that permits an employee to ask to work from home or remotely for up to two days per week, and it replaces the usual 'reasonable business grounds' refusal standard for these requests with a stricter 'inherent requirements' test. It requires employers to genuinely engage with the employee and to consider any reasonable adjustments that would allow the request to proceed.
Who It Affects
The change matters to employers with roles that can be performed remotely (knowledge, professional and administrative roles), HR and legal teams who handle flexible work disputes, and the Fair Work Commission, which will see more determinations about whether refusals were justified. It will have limited direct effect on frontline roles that already cannot be performed remotely.
Why It Matters
By tightening the refusal test and giving the FWC power to rule definitively, the bill reduces employer discretion over short hybrid arrangements and creates a clearer pathway to remedy for employees. That combination is likely to increase disputes and require employers to document engagement and adjustments carefully.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law an employee can request a change in working arrangements (hours, pattern or location) and an employer may refuse on 'reasonable business grounds'. This bill keeps the flexible work request pathway but carves out a special, narrower rule for requests that would allow an employee to work from home or remotely for up to two days per week.
Those requests are labeled in the Act as 'work from home up to 2 days requests' and are treated differently when an employer considers refusing them.
For these specific requests the employer must engage with the employee genuinely about the request; the employer must consider any reasonable adjustments that could make the request workable; and the only permissible ground for refusal is that the requested change would make it impractical or impossible for the employee to perform the inherent requirements of the role. That is a narrower and more specific threshold than the ordinary 'reasonable business grounds' test used for other flexible work requests.The bill also changes the Fair Work Commission’s remedial toolbox.
If an employer refuses a 'work from home up to 2 days' request and the employee takes the matter to the FWC, the Commission can make an order either treating the employer’s 'inherent requirements' ground as made out or treating it as not made out. The Act then treats that determination as having legal effect for the particular case.
Other technical amendments in the schedule adjust cross-references and clarify that the new rules apply only to requests made on or after the commencement date.Practical effect: employees in jobs compatible with remote work gain a targeted pathway to secure up to two remote days a week; employers must put evidence on the table if they decline, explore adjustments, and document genuine engagement. The FWC will take a more active role resolving disputes about the substance of refusals rather than simply whether procedural steps were followed.
Because the amendments apply prospectively, employers should update their flexible work policies, train managers on the 'inherent requirements' assessment and maintain records of engagement and adjustments for any qualifying request made after commencement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a 'work from home up to 2 days request' as a request that would, if agreed, allow the employee to work from home or remotely for up to two days per week.
For those requests the employer may refuse only if the requested change would make performance of the role’s inherent requirements impractical or impossible—replacing the broader 'reasonable business grounds' test.
The employer must 'genuinely engage' with the employee about the request and must consider any reasonable adjustments that could accommodate it.
If the Fair Work Commission makes an order about a 'work from home up to 2 days' refusal, the Act treats the Commission’s finding that the employer’s ground is made out (or not) as if that ground has been made out (or not) for the case.
The amendments take effect for requests made on or after commencement; Schedule timing provisions make Schedule 1 commence the day after Royal Assent.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New defined term for short hybrid requests
The bill inserts a definitional pointer—'work from home up to 2 days request'—and links it to the new subsection 65A(4A). That label is narrow by design: it limits the special regime to requests that would permit up to two days a week of remote work, which governs which refusal standard and dispute pathway apply.
Employee right to request stays but is streamlined
The Act retains the existing mechanism that lets an employee request a change in working arrangements but replaces the old wording in subsection 65(1). Practically this keeps the same route for employees to make requests while enabling the new, differentiated treatment for specified work-from-home requests to be layered on top of the existing framework.
Genuine engagement, adjusted refusal test and duties to consider adjustments
The bill tightens procedural obligations: it amends the engagement clause so employers must 'genuinely engage' with applicants and inserts an express duty to consider 'reasonable adjustments' when assessing whether performance of inherent requirements would be impractical or impossible. For work-from-home up to two days requests the refusal justification becomes this narrower 'inherent requirements' test rather than the catch-all 'reasonable business grounds' standard used elsewhere.
Fair Work Commission can rule on the substance of refusals
The bill expands the FWC’s remedial options when an employer refuses a qualifying request. It carves out a distinct path: for non-qualifying requests the usual remedies remain, but for qualifying two-day requests the FWC can order that the employer’s 'inherent requirements' ground be treated as made out or not made out. The Act then specifies that such FWC orders have the effect of establishing (or not) the ground for the case at hand.
Definition and assessment guidance for two-day requests
Subsection 65A(4A) defines the class of requests covered. Subsection 65A(4B) requires employers to consider reasonable adjustments when assessing the 'inherent requirements' ground—this is significant because it forces employers to explore mitigations rather than rely on a quick categorical refusal. Other consequential edits align cross-references and ensure the new rules slot into the Act's existing structure.
Prospective application
Part 20 clarifies that the amendments apply only to requests made on or after commencement. That limits immediate retrospective claims based on past denials and gives employers a clear cut-off for when new procedures and tests must be used.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Knowledge and professional employees seeking hybrid arrangements — they gain a narrower legal barrier to obtaining up to two remote days per week and a clearer route to an FWC determination if refused.
- Employees with care responsibilities (parents, carers) — the targeted entitlement helps those who need predictable, limited remote time to manage care without asking for full-time remote status.
- Unions and workplace advocates — the FWC’s power to make substantive declarations gives advocates a stronger enforcement lever to challenge refusals that lack factual justification.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers with mixed or customer-facing operations — they face tighter evidentiary requirements to refuse qualifying requests and must document genuine engagement and consideration of adjustments, increasing HR workloads and potential litigation risk.
- Small businesses and micro‑employers — they may lack the HR capacity to conduct the required assessments, absorb costs of adjustments (IT, scheduling) or contest FWC findings without legal counsel.
- The Fair Work Commission and regulators — the FWC will see more applications that require fact-intensive determinations about operational necessity and reasonable adjustments, increasing case complexity and administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades employer managerial discretion for a narrower employee entitlement: it aims to expand predictable hybrid access for workers while forcing employers to justify refusals more substantively, but in doing so it raises uncertainty about how to interpret 'inherent requirements' and 'reasonable adjustments' and shifts dispute volume and costs onto employers and the FWC.
The bill narrows legal discretion for short hybrid requests but leaves key concepts undefined or fact‑dependent. 'Inherent requirements' is a context‑sensitive standard courts and tribunals have previously interpreted variably; applying it to hybrid arrangements will require new fact-finding on tasks, supervision, team interaction and confidentiality. 'Reasonable adjustments' likewise imports ideas from discrimination law but the bill does not set cost, feasibility or health-and-safety thresholds, leaving employers and the FWC to work these out on a case-by-case basis.
The FWC’s power to order that a ground be treated as made out or not is consequential but not plenary: while the Act says such orders are to be treated as establishing the ground, the bill does not address remedial layering (compensation, reinstatement, bargaining consequences) in detail. That creates tactical uncertainty about how far an adverse FWC determination goes beyond the individual case and whether it will prompt settlements, bargaining changes, or more systemic claims.
Finally, the rule is tightly limited to 'up to 2 days' requests, which reduces its reach but invites strategic behavior: employees who want more remote time may frame incremental requests, and employers may redesign roles or shift tasks to create 'inherent requirements' that preclude remote time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.