Flexible Work Refusals After Chandler v Westpac: Takeaway For Hong Kong Employers

Workplace values are undergoing a profound transformation. Across the globe, employees increasingly prioritise flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance, driving a surge in demand for hybrid and remote arrangements. Meanwhile, there is also a marked ‘return-to-office' momentum as employers seek to strengthen collaboration, foster innovation, and reinforce company culture, creating a growing tension between evolving employee expectations and operational pragmatism. This recalibration is occurring against a backdrop of heightened legal, reputational and talent retention pressures, alongside rising disputes around flexible working, restructuring and leadership capability. The Australian decision in Chandler v Westpac highlights these competing dynamics by underscoring that employers cannot rely on broad policy preferences or abstract assertions about in person work to refuse flexibility, but must instead engage in a genuine, consultative and evidence based assessment of individual requests. The key lesson is that flexibility disputes increasingly turn, not on whether employers value office attendance, but on whether they can demonstrate role specific, proportionate and procedurally fair reasons for refusal, reflecting a broader global shift towards more employee centred, transparent and accountable workplace decision making, even in jurisdictions like Hong Kong where no formal statutory right to request to work from home exists.

Facts and the decision

The employee, Ms Chandler, made a request of her employer, Westpac Banking Corporation, to work remotely to meet childcare responsibilities, proposing alternatives including limited work from a local branch rather than travelling several hours to the corporate office. Westpac refused, relying on its hybrid policy requiring regular office attendance and the perceived advantages of face to face engagement. The Commission found that Westpac had failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements in responding to the request, and that the refusal was not supported by reasonable business grounds.

The Commission ordered that the flexible arrangement be granted, emphasising that the employee's role had been performed successfully on a remote basis over an extended period and that the team's configuration already relied heavily on virtual collaboration.

The operational realities were weighed carefully. The Commission noted that general statements about the value of in person presence did not meet the statutory threshold. The decision is grounded in the specific facts, but its message is broader: employers cannot default to policy to avoid engaging with the merits of an individual request.

Procedural compliance and concrete, role specific evidence for “Reasonable business grounds”

Two features of the decision stand out.

First, strict compliance with the statutory process was decisive. Under Australia's Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWA”), an employer may refuse a flexible work request only after discussing the proposal, genuinely trying to reach agreement, having regard to the consequences for the employee, and providing timely, detailed written reasons that explain the particular business grounds and how they apply. The Commission found Westpac's response was not issued within the statutory timeframe, did not demonstrate genuine engagement or consideration of the employee's circumstances, and lacked detailed, role specific reasons. The failures were treated as substantive, not merely technical.

Second, the employer's business grounds need to be concrete and sufficiently specific. General statements about collaboration, training, or customer service benefits arising from office attendance failed to persuade the Commission, particularly where the employee's role had demonstrably been performed successfully and efficiently on a remote basis over a sustained period. The Commission highlighted the remote configuration of the team, the availability of virtual alternatives for meetings and training, and Westpac's failure to quantify detriment or demonstrating a causal link between office attendance and improved outcomes for this particular role. In short, policies prescribing office days do not, by themselves, evidence reasonable business grounds for refusing a particular request.

The analysis sets a practical benchmark. To justify refusal, employers should be prepared to present role specific evidence: for example, measurable impacts on productivity or service quality, clear requirements for physical presence integral to the work, or constraints that make remote performance impracticable. Where alternatives such as attendance at a nearer branch are feasible, these must be explored and explained. Consistency with a hybrid policy is relevant but will rarely be decisive without supporting facts.

Implications for employers

The outcome in Chandler underscores that flexible work requests demand an individualised, consultative process rather than mechanistic policy enforcement. This means employers should:

• Engage promptly, documenting discussions and efforts to reach agreement.
• Assess and record the consequences for the employee if the request is refused.
• Articulate concrete, role specific business grounds, ideally supported by timely written reasons and evidence, where a refusal is considered.
• Where full accommodation is not possible, propose reasoned alternatives with clarity about feasibility and expected outcomes.

Where hybrid policies are applied across large workforces, the decision suggests that consistency alone is not a standalone justification. Employers should be able to demonstrate how in person attendance contributes materially to the performance of the specific role at issue, and why that contribution cannot reasonably be achieved through alternative arrangements.

Resonance with employment trends in Hong Kong

Hong Kong has not adopted a statutory “right to request” regime akin to Australia's. Nevertheless, Chandler's emphasis on consultation, proportionality, and fairness aligns closely with Hong Kong's evolving employment landscape.

Hybrid work remains common in Hong Kong's financial and professional sectors, but many employers are recalibrating expectations around office presence. Employees increasingly seek flexibility for caregiving and health related reasons, and decisions about remote work can intersect with obligations under Hong Kong's anti discrimination framework, including family status and disability discrimination. Whilst there is no prescribed statutory process equivalent to the FWA's detailed roadmap, the principles of engaging with the employee's circumstances, assessing operational needs with evidence, and documenting alternatives are highly relevant to minimising legal risk and sustaining workforce engagement.

In practice, Hong Kong employers should also recognise the scrutiny that can follow inflexible application of attendance policies where protected characteristics are in play. A reasoned, evidence based assessment of operational needs, coupled with documented consideration of alternatives, helps reduce legal exposure and is increasingly seen as good governance and a marker of fairness. This is particularly salient in a market where talent competition and retention pressures remain elevated, and where cross border arrangements within the Greater Bay Area add complexity to role specific operational needs.

Recent academic research has provided compelling data on the positive impacts of hybrid models. A six-month study of over 1,600 employees at a major Chinese tech firm, published in the journal Nature, found that hybrid work arrangements did not negatively impact performance or promotion opportunities. Employees in the hybrid group exhibited significantly higher job satisfaction and were 35% less likely to leave the company. This suggests that flexible work is not merely a matter of employee convenience but a powerful tool for talent retention. For employers, these findings challenge the assumption that in-person work is inherently superior for fostering loyalty and engagement, indicating that the benefits of offering flexibility can outweigh perceived drawbacks.

In a competitive talent market like Hong Kong, the ability to offer structured hybrid arrangements can offer a distinct advantage. A principled move towards flexible work can be a win-win: enhancing employee engagement and loyalty while strengthening their position in the ongoing war for talent.

The takeaway is not that office attendance is unjustifiable, but that justification must be specific, proportionate, and demonstrably connected to the role and the business. As flexible work becomes embedded rather than exceptional, the organisations that succeed will be those that combine operational discipline with principled, employee centred decision making. Even where local law does not mandate a formal procedure, adopting a structured approach,consultation, impact assessment, reasoned decision making, and exploration of alternatives aligns with global best practice and mitigates reputational and legal risk.

Organisations operating across jurisdictions should align policy with robust process, invest in manager training, and build an audit trail that shows genuine engagement and proportional decision making.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.