When Flexibility Meets Business Reality: Lessons from the Uniqlo Parental Leave Dispute

The Fair Work Commission has once again clarified the line between constructive dismissal and a lawful refusal of flexible working arrangements. In Muriqi v Uniqlo, a senior HR manager alleged she had been forced to resign when the company rejected her request to return to work just two days per week after parental leave. The Commission disagreed, finding her resignation was a choice—not a dismissal.

Before her return from a year of parental leave, the HR manager sought to work Mondays and Wednesdays only, with the possibility of building to three days later. Uniqlo declined, citing the seniority of her role and the practical demands of mentoring, dispute resolution, investigations, and incident response. Instead, the retailer offered two alternatives: a four-day, 30-hour week for six months before resuming full-time hours, or a transition into a sustainability lead position starting at two days a week, later increasing to four.

When Flexibility Meets Business Reality: Lessons from the Uniqlo Parental Leave Dispute

Uniqlo also reminded her that she had the right to take the dispute to the Fair Work Commission under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which provides employees a mechanism to challenge refusals of flexible work requests. Instead, she resigned and immediately claimed that the refusal constituted unlawful adverse action.

Deputy President Kamal Farouque rejected the argument. He emphasised that an employee, particularly one at a senior HR level, who is fully aware of the statutory dispute process, cannot claim they had “no effective or real choice but to resign” merely because a preferred arrangement was refused. The Commission highlighted that constructive dismissal requires evidence the employer intended to bring employment to an end or left the employee with no genuine option but resignation. Neither threshold was met.

Crucially, the Commission noted that while Uniqlo may or may not have had “reasonable business grounds” for refusing a strict two-day request, that question was irrelevant to the constructive dismissal claim. The point was that a proper dispute resolution mechanism existed—and the HR manager was “clearly aware” of it.

This case underscores three important lessons:

1. For employees: If your flexible work request is refused, do not rush to resign. The Fair Work Act provides avenues for dispute resolution that may still achieve a compromise without ending your employment.

2. For employers: Any refusal of a flexibility request must be supported by clear business reasons and accompanied by advice about the employee’s rights. Uniqlo’s proactive referral to the Commission strengthened its case.

3. For the workplace generally: Constructive dismissal remains a high bar. A simple disagreement over hours—absent coercion, bad faith, or intent to end the employment relationship—will rarely meet it.

As workplaces grapple with balancing flexibility and operational demands, this ruling is a reminder that lawful processes, not ultimatums, guide the outcome. Flexibility is a right to request—not a guarantee to obtain—and both sides must navigate the framework carefully.

Would you like me to also draft a short social-media version of this blog (something you could post on LinkedIn or Facebook to drive traffic), summarising the key takeaways in plain language?