Carers Dealt Blow in Back-to-Back Fair Work WFH Rulings

The Fair Work Commission has sided with a Sydney employer in refusing a payroll officer’s bid to work from home two days a week to care for his young children. In his flexible working arrangement request, the officer sought to work from home on Mondays and Fridays after his employer discontinued a hybrid work policy. His employer cited the worker’s underperformance and argued he could not look after toddlers while maintaining “uninterrupted focus” on his job. The Commission agreed his employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request.

In this article, we look at why Fair Work rejected the work from home request in Rabin Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026]. We’ll also look at a recent WFH decision involving a Melbourne worker ordered back into the office despite her role as primary carer for her mother.

Case Summary: Rabin Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW
  
  
• Key employee argument: His caring responsibilities for two young children justified continuing to WFH on Mondays and Fridays.
  
  
• Key employer argument: The worker required uninterrupted focus incompatible with primary caring duties, and his performance had already declined.
  
  
• Fair Work outcome: The employer had reasonable business ground to refuse the flexible working arrangement.

Worker’s WFH request refused over performance issues

Sydney-based Rabin Gurung started working for building materials supplier Knauf Gypsum as a full-time payroll officer in April 2020. During Covid-19, the company introduced work from home measures in line with government mandates. In February 2022, Knauf requested that employees return to the office for a minimum of three days per week.

Knauf introduced a hybrid work policy in May 2024. This stipulated that an employee working under a hybrid arrangement could not also act as the primary carer of a child of primary school age or younger during business hours. On 26 April 2024, Mr. Gurung applied for a hybrid arrangement under the policy. This was approved around a week later, allowing him to work from home on Mondays and Fridays.

On 29 September 2025, Knauf informed employees that the policy would be discontinued from the start of the new year. As Mr. Gurung was on extended leave at the time, his manager told him about the change on 6 November 2025.

Worker cited caring responsibilities in flexible working arrangement request

On 21 January 2026, Mr. Gurung submitted to Knauf a flexible working arrangement request  to continue working from home every Monday and Friday. This was on the basis that he was the primary carer for his two children, aged two and four. He requested those days as that was when they did not attend daycare. Mr. Gurung highlighted that his wife was suffering from a pregnancy-related medical condition, making him the primary carer.

On 20 February 2026, Knauf told Mr. Gurung in writing that it had refused his flexible working arrangement request. It cited reasonable business grounds for refusal, including:

• Mr. Gurung’s caring responsibilities would deny him “uninterrupted focus” to his payroll duties.
  
  
• His attention to detail had already shown a marked drop while working from home. His latest performance review rated him as “partially meets expectations.”
  
  
• Development areas requiring him to manage complex payroll processes with less supervision had not progressed satisfactorily.

Knauf proposed four alternative arrangements. This included compressed hours across four days, adjusted daily hours, a move to part-time employment across three days, or a shift-based arrangement.

Why did the worker argue his flexible working arrangement should be granted?

In his Fair Work flexible working arrangement claim, Mr. Gurung argued to the Fair Work Commission:

• Being a primary caregiver does not automatically prevent an employee from effectively performing while WFH.
  
  
• Knauf had made assumptions about his caregiving responsibilities rather than relying on specific evidence.
  
  
• He had consistently carried out the responsibilities of his role and did not accept he had been underperforming.
  
  
• Knauf had not provided specific examples linking performance concerns to his work from home arrangement.
  
  
• He was not the sole carer for his children and established routines were important for his young family.

In response to the Fair Work flexible working arrangement claim, Knauf argued Mr. Gurung’s circumstances had changed since his WFH arrangement was first approved. The company noted that he did not have children back then and that his first child’s birth had not affected his capacity, as his wife was then the primary carer. Knauf stated that his carer responsibilities had increased since his second child’s birth. The company said that Mr. Gurung’s role required high attention to detail.

Why did Fair Work agree with the flexible working arrangement refusal?

Mr. Gurung’s Fair Work flexible working arrangement dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission in June 2026. It ruled that Knauf had reasonable business grounds for refusing the request based on the following findings:

• A role involving payroll processing requires focus in order to minimise errors.
  
  
• Knauf’s assumptions about the impact of caring responsibilities were not misplaced as young children require a “high level of attention and care.”
  
  
• Mr. Gurung provided little detail as to what assistance his wife could offer.
  
  
• There was a “very high risk of interruption” in performing his work while caring for two young children, giving rise to a “real risk of error and inefficiency.”
  
  
• On the balance of probabilities, Mr. Gurung’s caring responsibilities had contributed to his poor performance.

The Commission noted that Knauf remained willing to consider alternative flexible working arrangements. It encouraged the parties to continue discussions to better balance their needs.

‘Reasonable business grounds’: Worker loses work from home bid

In Mele Taunisila v Agl Energy Limited [2026], a Melbourne employee who sought to work from home full-time to care for her mother with dementia had her flexible working arrangement request rejected by the Fair Work Commission. Her employer argued her exclusive absence from the office prevented in-person coaching and pointed to her underperformance while working from home. The Commission found her employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request, before ordering a compromise arrangement.

Case Summary: Mele Taunisila v AGL Energy Limited [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission Victoria.
  
  
• Key employee argument: Her caring responsibilities for her mother with dementia required her to work from home permanently.
  
  
• Key employer argument: The worker’s declining performance required in-person coaching and her office absence placed an unreasonable burden on colleagues.
  
  
• Fair Work outcome: The employer’s refusal was on reasonable business grounds, but a compromise was ordered requiring limited office attendance for a six-month trial.

Worker ordered into office despite carer responsibilities

Melbourne-based Mele Taunisila was a customer service consultant with AGL’s ConnectNow business. She started a full-time work from home arrangement in May 2020 which continued under AGL’s flexible work policy. This allowed staff to work from home when rostered on a shift finishing after 6pm. Ms. Taunisila worked solely on the 12pm to 8pm shift. She argued that her caring responsibilities for her mother required her to work remotely at all times.

AGL’s remote working policy required staff to attend the office three days per week. From August 2024, the company sought for Ms. Taunisila to return to the office for at least part of the week, citing performance concerns. She resisted this due to her caring responsibilities.

Work from home request denied due to worker’s need for coaching

In March 2025, Ms. Taunisila submitted to AGL a flexible working arrangement request to work from home permanently during the afternoon shift, Monday to Friday, with occasional rostered Saturday shifts. AGL rejected this in April 2025. The company cited an inability to provide side-by-side coaching, an uneven distribution of tasks among the team and inadequate tech support for remote workers.

In August 2025, Ms. Taunisila made a second flexible working arrangement request, seeking the same as her first. AGL refused the request yet again. It cited the impact on other employees’ working arrangements and insufficient staff coverage. The company also said the arrangement would lead to high costs to cover leave and negatively impact customer service.

Why did the worker argue her flexible working arrangement should be granted?

In her Fair Work flexible working arrangement claim, Ms. Taunisila argued to the Fair Work Commission:

• She was the primary carer for her mother, who suffers from dementia and double incontinence, requiring hygiene care and feeding assistance.
  
  
• Her husband could not assist with care due to cultural considerations.
  
  
• Her sister could not provide care due to her job’s inflexibility. She was also reluctant to be alone with their mother on weekends.
  
  
• Her mother was ineligible for government-funded care schemes as she was not a permanent resident.
  
  
• Private care for her mother “would not be feasible.”

Performance had declined from ‘good’ to ‘inconsistent’

In response to the Fair Work flexible working arrangement claim, AGL outlined Ms. Taunisila’s decline in performance. She had gone from “Good Year” ratings in FY19, FY21 and FY22, to “Inconsistent Year” ratings in FY23 and FY24. In FY25, she received a rating of “Getting There.” Evidence provided to the Fair Work Commission showed that Ms. Taunisila had failed to meet several targets across this period.

AGL also provided evidence of Ms. Taunisila’s January 2025 self-assessment. This indicated she was capable of performing only 26% of her role’s required tasks. It also stated that in May 2025, she reported being “not trained” in 13 of the tasks assessed. Her manager of seven months told the Commission that he was yet to meet Ms. Taunisila in person. He said this had made it difficult to develop a working relationship and provide support.

Why did the employer argue the WFH request should be refused?

Citing reasonable business grounds to refuse, AGL argued to the Fair Work Commission:

• Ms. Taunisila’s exclusive absence from the office prevented side-by-side coaching and real-time training. The company considered these vital to improve her performance.
  
  
• Her non-participation in the rotating roster placed a disproportionate workload on colleagues.
  
  
• Specific skill areas, including partner support and billing dispute resolution, required in-person training that could not practically be delivered online.

AGL proposed to the Commission an alternative flexible working arrangement. This would consist of a four-hour shift in the office once a fortnight, with the remaining hours WFH, including a four-hour shift from home on the alternating Saturday. This proposal took into account advice from Ms. Taunisila’s mother’s doctor, which stated that Ms. Taunisila’s husband assumed caregiving responsibilities from midday.

Why did Fair Work agree with the employer’s WFH request refusal?

Ms. Taunisila’s Fair Work flexible working arrangement dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission in June 2026. It ruled that AGL had reasonable business grounds for refusing the request based on the following findings:

• AGL had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Ms. Taunisila, having offered a series of alternative arrangements .
  
  
• It was impractical to change other employees’ working arrangements to accommodate the request. The change would create an “unbalanced result in terms of comparative workloads.”
  
  
• Ms. Taunisila’s declining performance ratings indicated that “more of the same will not see an improvement in her performance”
  
  
• The requirement for her to have in-person contact with her manager was a “reasonable business ground” for refusing an exclusive WFH arrangement.
  
  
• Ms. Taunisila’s working arrangements would likely result in a “significant” productivity decline and negatively affect customer service.
  
  
• The alternative arrangement offered by AGL was “a serious and reasonable attempt” to balance the interests of both parties.

Why did Fair Work order a WFH arrangement compromise?

However, the Commission did not altogether dismiss the Fair Work flexible working arrangement claim. It said that fairness between the employer and employee required “a degree of compromise” by both parties. The Commission approved AGL’s proposed flexible working arrangement for the following reasons:

• The arrangement would provide a “reasonable opportunity” for training and mentoring” while accommodating Ms. Taunisila’s circumstances.
  
  
• Ms. Taunisila’s argument about the unfeasibility of private care for her mother was rejected.
  
  
• Fairness did not require AGL “to bear the burden” of Ms. Taunisila’s mother’s ineligibility for government funding or her sister’s job inflexibility.

Ultimately, the Commission ordered AGL to implement the alternative flexible working arrangement for a six-month trial period, commencing 27 July 2026. This required Ms. Taunisila to attend the office for a four-hour shift once a fortnight, with a corresponding four-hour shift worked from home on the alternating Saturday.

Fair Work flexible working arrangement FAQs

1. What is the WFH law in Australia?

Under the Fair Work Act 2009, eligible employees, including those with caring responsibilities, a disability or who are 55 or older, can request a flexible working arrangement, such as working from home. Employers must respond in writing within 21 days and can only refuse the request on reasonable business grounds.

In Mele Taunisila v AGL Energy Limited [2026], the Fair Work Commission found that AGL had reasonable business grounds to refuse a worker’s request to WFH permanently. The company cited the worker’s declining performance and need for in-person coaching. However, the Commission still ordered a compromise arrangement, showing that even a valid refusal doesn’t always end the matter.

2. For what reasons can flexible work be declined?

Employers can lawfully decline a flexible working arrangement request if they can prove that the refusal was made on reasonable business grounds. This can include if the arrangement would incur excessive cost, be impractical or result in significant loss in efficiency or  productivity. The employer must have discussed the request and genuinely tried to reach an agreement before refusing.

In Rabin Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026], the Fair Work Commission accepted that the worker’s role required uninterrupted focus to avoid payroll errors. It also accepted that his performance had already declined while working from home with young children in his care. This was found to constitute reasonable business grounds for refusal.

Read more: Family Duties, Parental Status or Status as a Carer Discrimination

Has your boss violated your workplace rights?

Whether you’re dealing with a refused flexible work request, unfair dismissal, discrimination, sexual harassment or bullying, we at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives can help. We are Australia’s leading workplace mediators, bringing over 40 years’ combined experience helping the nation’s workers take their employers to task for violating their rights.

Our team can help you make a Fair Work claim and guide you through the process to help ensure you get maximum compensation. Your initial consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a no win, no fee basis. Contact us today on 1800 333 666.