Work-from-home earthquake as bosses are handed landmark victory – and it could have a huge impact for MILLIONS of Aussies
A software engineer’s work‑from‑home standoff has ended in defeat, after the Fair Work Commission ruled his refusal to return to the office justified his dismissal.
PaperCut software engineer Richard Johnson argued his 2022 employment contract gave him an unconditional right to work from his Melbourne home.
He said the company’s requirement that he attend the office three days a week breached the contract and therefore made his dismissal unfair.
But the Commission ruled PaperCut was entitled to direct Johnson to comply with its hybrid work policy, introduced after extensive trials and staff consultation as the business emerged from pandemic-era working arrangements.
When Johnson joined the company in April 2022, his contract stated he was permitted to WFH in line with existing policy, but also that he may be required to work from other locations.
It further required compliance with all reasonable and lawful directions.
PaperCut initially allowed Johnson to work remotely with only occasional office visits.
However, following the Victorian Government’s withdrawal of its WFH recommendation and the company’s own hybrid work trials, PaperCut introduced a new policy in August 2023 requiring employees to attend the office three days a week by January 2025.
PaperCut software engineer Richard Johnson (pictured) argued his 2022 employment contract gave him an unconditional right to work from home
Johnson said the company’s requirement that he attend the Melbourne office (pictured) three days a week breached that contract and made his dismissal unfair
In December 2024, Johnson was advised his primary work location would change from his home to the office from January 1.
He was told he did not need to agree to the change but was required to comply and could discuss transitional arrangements.
Over the following months, Johnson continued to reject the direction, insisting his contract entitled him to work entirely from home.
PaperCut issued repeated written warnings, including a final warning, stating failure to follow the direction could result in dismissal.
On May 30, Johnson’s legal representatives wrote to PaperCut maintaining the return‑to‑office requirement was not lawful.
At a June 11 meeting, PaperCut reiterated that Johnson would be dismissed if he did not comply. When he continued to refuse, he was sacked on June 19.
PaperCut also sought to clarify his contract wording to state he may be permitted to WFH in line with company policy, but Johnson declined the amendment.
Johnson acknowledged he had not followed the direction to return to the office but maintained he was relying on legal advice that the direction was contrary to his contract.
Papercut Software founder Chris Dance’s (pictured) company implemented a hybrid work policy after the Victorian Government’s withdrawal of its WFH recommendation
The Fair Work Commisson is dealing with an increasing rising number of disputes over flexible work arrangements, most notably the case of a Westpac employee who successfully challenged the bank’s office‑attendance policy
The Commission rejected that argument, finding PaperCut acted within its rights to enforce the hybrid policy and dismiss him for non‑compliance.
Commissioner Scott Connolly said based on the wording of the contract, a reasonable person would find that PaperCut had agreed ‘he could work from home at the time the contract was entered into’, and only if it was consistent with the company’s policy.
‘Working from home, is something PaperCut “allowed” him to do,’ Mr Connolly said.
‘It was not, however, as he believed, a “right” he was entitled to without caveat.’
Commissioner Connolly said under the contract, in the event the company’s policy changed, working from home might no longer be allowed.
He ruled the request to attend the office on a hybrid basis reasonable.
‘I also consider the numerous opportunities that were provided to him to understand their position, proposed transitional arrangements and the time he was given to comply with the direction further demonstrate reasonableness,’ Mr Connolly said.
He observed that PaperCut had warned Johnson about the consequences of his failure to comply with the company’s directions, and his conduct left PaperCut with ‘no other real or reasonable option but to bring his employment to an end’.
Sydney University professor Joellen Riley (pictured) said ‘working from home isn’t simply for someone who thinks they’d prefer it because it’s easier to duck out at lunchtime and practise their golf swing’
The FWC is dealing with a rising number of disputes over flexible work arrangements, most notably the case of a Westpac employee who last year successfully challenged the bank’s office‑attendance policy.
Only certain workers have a legal right to request flexible arrangements such as people caring for children or elderly parents, those with a disability, or employees aged over 55.
During that dispute, Westpac defended its hybrid work policy, arguing a minimum level of office attendance was essential for effective teamwork and business operations.
It also warned that allowing one worker to work remotely full‑time so she could avoid a long commute would undermine the bank’s ability to require other staff to attend the office at least two days a week.
Sydney University professor emeritus Joellen Riley said relying on the wording of an employment contract offers workers limited protection, as outcomes are highly dependent on the specific facts of each case.
She said employees wanting to challenge a direction to return to the office should first consider whether they are eligible to request flexible work arrangements.
‘Most employment contracts contain clauses giving employers broad flexibility to change your duties, location and other aspects of the role,’ she told the Sydney Morning Herald.
‘Working from home isn’t simply for someone who thinks they’d prefer it because it’s easier to duck out at lunchtime and practise their golf swing.’
