A recent Fair Work Commission case Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd (C2024/8591) provides guidance on what the Fair Work Commission considers when arbitrating a dispute arising from a refusal to grant a flexible working request and making an assessment as to whether grounds for refusing a flexible working request are reasonable business grounds in the circumstances.
Please read our case summary below which raises some interesting issues when employers are responding to flexible working requests.
On 24 February 2025, Commissioner Sloan of the Fair Work Commission (the FWC) delivered a decision in Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd (C2024/8591), which ordered, in addition to the worker’s regular 2 days a week working from home, an additional day to work from home every second Monday.
Please get in touch if you have any questions about your working arrangements or your employee’s. We would be happy to answer any questions.
Summary of Facts
Kent Aoyama commenced working, on a full-time basis, with Frontier Logistics Pty Limited on 3 May 2021, as an Accounts Manager.
Since at least July 2023, Mr Aoyama was granted permission to work from home on Tuesday and Thursday each week.
In July 2023, Mr Aoyama and his wife had a child. Mr Aoyama’s work arrangements worked for him as, at that time, his wife’s job allowed flexibility in work hours, and they had the assistance of a nanny.
On or about August 2024, Mr Aoyama’s wife changed jobs, which meant that she no longer had the same flexibility in her hours of work.
Request for Flexible Work, Refusal and Dispute
Following an apparent need for Mr Aoyama to spend more time in the office, Mr Aoyama emailed the Chief Financial Officer (David Parker) on 28 October 2024 and said they had a nanny 3 days a week and had 2 days of hotdesking/childcare set up but always needed an adult with their child. To allow for that, he requested, in addition to his existing work from home arrangements, that he work from home every alternate Monday.
On 11 November 2024, Mr Parker sent an email to Mr Aoyama and refused the flexible work request on the basis that his employer had concerns about his responsiveness to customers during business hours, customer perception and Mr Aoyama’s need to take his daughter with him for work-related visits. Instead, his employer allowed a 6-month trial of his existing working from home arrangement.
Mr Aoyama sent an email on 12 November 2024, seeking clarity on the proposed grounds of refusal and added that he would return missed calls, like he would if he were in the office.
On 1 December 2024, Mr Aoyama commenced an application under s 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
The Evidence
FLSA
FLSA argued, amongst other items, that Mr Aoyama’s usual place of employment was in North Sydney. Supervision of his daughter would involve duties that ‘would represent a significant distraction’ and conflict with his contract of employment.
His requested work arrangements would have a significant negative impact on customer service as he was often less responsive to clients (sending responses late in evening, etc) and would be distracted by his daughter.
That granting Mr Aoyama’s request could set a concerning precedent across the broader business as it had spent a lot of money on real estate and would prefer its employees use the office.
Mr Aoyama
Mr Aoyama disputed that FLSA had reasonable business grounds for refusing his request as, amongst other things, his key performance indicators required him to respond to emails and calls (if missed) within 4 hours. His child had not prevented him from meeting that target and would not do so in the future.
In the event he had to attend a client site, he and his wife could manage their affairs to ensure that he was able to attend.
Until his flexible work request, FLSA had not raised with him any concerns regarding his working from home arrangements.
He considered an additional day of working from home every fortnight would be a minor adjustment for FLSA but would make a significant difference to their finances and logistics to appropriately care for their child.
Consideration and Findings
Commissioner Sloan stated that the FWC is required to make an assessment as to whether FLSAs’ grounds are reasonable business grounds in the circumstances, requiring an objective assessment of those reasons ([42]).
Commissioner Sloan considered that FLSAs’ arguments regarding reasonable business grounds as unpersuasive and failed to recognise the objects of the FW Act. The purpose of flexible working arrangements is to accommodate circumstances of individual employees which could depart from the written terms of an agreement ([43]).
It was unremarkable that a contract of employment would specify a person’s ‘usual’ place of work. That did not say that location was an employee’s only place of work. It was considered misguided that an employee is to devote their whole time to work and immaterial that an employee might change nappies or settle a child during working hours.
The purported explanations of the refusal were described as imprecise and lacked a supportive basis. FLSA were required to produce evidence that demonstrated that the arrangements caused a negative impact on customer service or business productivity.
There was no weight placed on FLSAs’ submissions as to Mr Aoyama’s case creating a precedent. That was the very purpose of the flexible working arrangement and the FWC would not dissuade others to assert their rights under the FW Act.
The FWC was persuaded by Mr Aoyama’s change in personal circumstances and was satisfied that it was appropriate to make an order consistent with his request of 28 October 2024 to be in place until the child is 2 years old.
Conclusion
The case discusses the importance of the employer being able to demonstrate the ‘actual detriment’ to the business or impinge on his capacity to provide efficient and productive work. Employers should consider reviewing their organisation structure, job descriptions including duties and responsibilities to help them to effectively respond to any flexible working request and consider whether there are any reasonable business grounds to refuse.
Please find the link here to the full decision for your information: Kent Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd – [2025] FWC 524 | Fair Work Commission.
This case summary was written by Victoria Stamper, Principal Lawyer, in the Employment, Workplace and Relations and Safety Team. Please do not hesitate to contact Victoria on (08) 9321 0522 if you have any queries.
