Dad Wins Fight for More WFH Time
A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling in the case of Kent Aoyama v FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 524 highlights the importance for employers to carefully consider and clearly justify any decision to reject formal requests for flexible working arrangements.
This case offers key lessons for businesses navigating remote work requests in a post-pandemic world, particularly where caregiving responsibilities are involved.
Case Overview
Kent Aoyama, employed by FLSA Holdings Pty Ltd (a freight and logistics company), had been working from home two days per week since mid-2023. After a change in his wife’s work schedule impacted their childcare setup, Aoyama requested to work from home an additional day every second week to care for their child.
Although transparent about managing parenting responsibilities during work hours, including using a nanny or shared workspace with on-site childcare (“Bubbadesk”) — FLSA rejected his formal request. Citing vague performance concerns and client complaints about “babies in the background,” the company instead offered a limited trial continuation of the existing two-day remote arrangement.
Aoyama sought intervention from the Fair Work Commission under new post-COVID provisions that give broader power to conciliate and arbitrate disputes over flexible work.
FWC Decision and Key Findings
Commissioner Damian Sloan ruled in Aoyama’s favour, ordering FLSA to approve the requested additional work-from-home day until July 2025, when Aoyama’s child is expected to enter regular childcare.
The decision is significant in affirming that:
- Generic or vague objections are not enough. The employer relied on limited and unsubstantiated complaints, without evidence that Aoyama’s current flexible arrangement was hurting productivity or service.
- Contractual obligations can be adapted. While FLSA pointed to Aoyama’s employment contract requiring full-time in-office work and undivided attention to duties, the Commission found this reasoning unrealistic, especially under the flexible work provisions of the Fair Work Act.
- Refusal must be tailored to the request. FLSA failed to explain how Aoyama’s new proposal (which differed only slightly from his existing arrangement) posed new challenges. The fear of “setting a precedent” was dismissed as irrelevant.
Lessons for Employers
This case sends a clear message to employers:
Take requests seriously. Eligible employees have a legal right to request flexible work. These requests must be handled in good faith.
Provide specific, reasonable grounds. Refusals must be based on well-documented and objective business reasons — not assumptions or general discomfort.
Communicate clearly. Ongoing, transparent conversations with employees can prevent disputes and clarify expectations.
Be flexible in negotiations. Even if a full request can’t be accommodated, explore partial solutions or compromises — and be able to justify what’s feasible and why.