When Flexibility Meets Operational Limits: Lessons from the Victoria Police Work-From-Home Case

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has drawn national attention to the tension between employee flexibility and frontline operational demands. In a case involving Victoria Police, a returning mother’s request to work from home on Mondays was lawfully refused, with the Commission affirming that the employer’s operational needs took precedence.

When Flexibility Meets Operational Limits: Lessons from the Victoria Police Work-From-Home Case

At 1800NOWINNOFEE™, we advocate for fairness and dignity at work, especially for those trying to balance caregiving responsibilities with professional duties. This case highlights the complexity of workplace flexibility—where rights must be considered alongside real-world service demands.

The Request: Work from Home to Assist with Childcare

The worker, a prosecutor with Victoria Police, had returned to her role on a part-time basis, working extended hours from Monday to Wednesday. However, she requested to work from home on Mondays to help manage school and childcare drop-offs.

Victoria Police declined the request. Instead, they offered to either transfer her to a closer workplace or adjust her shift times. The prosecutor did not accept these alternatives nor suggest other solutions. After five weeks back in the office, she re-submitted her work-from-home request, which again was refused.

The Commission’s Findings: The “Red Line Threshold”

Deputy President Amber Millhouse of the FWC reviewed the matter and found that Victoria Police’s decision was supported by clear operational grounds. The Melbourne Prosecutions Unit was operating at just 69% staffing—only four employees above what is known as the “Red Line Threshold,” which is the point at which essential service delivery may begin to fail.

She emphasised that reasonable business grounds do not require proof of a full operational collapse. Even modest but material risks to service delivery, especially in sectors like law enforcement, can justify refusal of flexible work.

The unit was already stretched thin on Mondays, with higher levels of unplanned personal leave compounding the rostering challenges. In that context, having one more team member unavailable for court duties—even if working remotely—was found to pose too great a risk.

Key Takeaways for Workers

This ruling offers a number of important insights for any worker—particularly parents and carers—seeking flexible arrangements under the Fair Work framework:

• Employers must still genuinely consider all requests for flexible work and provide a written response within 21 days;

• The grounds for refusal must be based on reasonable and evidence-based business needs;

• Workers are encouraged to engage in good faith dialogue and consider alternative options;

• Operational impact—especially in frontline services like healthcare, law enforcement, or emergency services—can lawfully outweigh individual flexibility requests.

Understanding Your Rights

The right to request flexible work is not a guarantee of approval. However, workers do have a right to have their request meaningfully assessed and not dismissed without justification. If you’re navigating a difficult conversation with your employer about workplace flexibility—especially if you’re a parent, carer, or returning to work after parental leave—it helps to understand what employers are allowed to rely on and where obligations may not have been met.

At 1800NOWINNOFEE™, we stand alongside workers asserting their rights to fair, flexible, and humane workplaces. We amplify the voices of everyday people facing structural obstacles to equality and inclusion in employment.

To learn more about workplace rights or to explore resources relevant to your situation, visit us at www.1800nowinnofee.com.au or call us directly at 1800 669 466.