More than a third of Australians work from home with about half of them doing so between one and four days a week.(Supplied: Unsplash/Annie Spratt)
A bill amending the Fair Work Act 2009 to include the right to work from home is too narrow in its focus and could lead to discrimination, according to submissions in a federal inquiry.
Others have cautioned against legislating work from home saying existing frameworks surrounding it have struck the right balance.
It comes as submissions to a federal inquiry closed on the bill to give employees the right to request work from home for up to two days per week.
The bill was introduced by the Greens in November last year, and later referred for an inquiry by the Senate, which is due to report back on August 27.
About 36 per cent of Australians currently work from home with about half of those doing so between one and four days a week, according to the Productivity Commission.
According to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO), work from home is among four flexible work arrangements which include flexible start and finish times, split shifts and job sharing.
Those eligible to request flexible work are pregnant people, parents, carers, people with a disability, people over 55 and those experiencing family and domestic violence.
The requests must be made in writing, explain what changes are being asked for, and the reason for the change.
The Finance Sector Union said in its submission some workers have been asked to provide medical certificates to work from home.
The office mandates are not uniform across the industry, nor are the penalties for non-compliance, the submission read.
There are some workers who were initially engaged in their role and were working from home full-time who are unable to work from the office.
This includes workers facing untenable commutes, increased costs and an inability to make the office mandates work alongside their caring responsibilities, those with disabilities.
Existing WFH arrangement 'sensible'
After widespread adoption following COVID-19 lockdown, work from home arrangements have stabilised, according to the Productivity Commission.
Its submission enquiry said in 2025, one to two days working from home was the most observed arrangement for full-time workers offered hybrid work arrangements.
The federal economic advisory body said most employers planned to maintain those arrangements over the next two years.
And well managed hybrid work has neutral to slightly positive effects on productivity, especially in white collar jobs.
Thus, Australian employers and employees overall appear to have landed on sensible work-from-home arrangements, the Productivity Commission submission read.
Suggesting that the process of experimentation, negotiation and adjustment described in the PC's 2021 report is largely working as anticipated.
In this context, the need for a legislated right to request to work from home is not clear.
The existing arrangements under the Fair Work Act struck the right balance, according to the Business Council of Australia's submission.
The industry body said existing legislation already provides employees with the right to request changes to work arrangements such as changing location to work from home.
It added the framework surrounding flexible work arrangements have been expanded to broaden eligibility, strengthen employer obligations to engage employees and require refusals based on reasonable business grounds.
On that basis, we believe this bill is unnecessary and risks unsettling the balance carefully struck under the current system, the submission read.
Which provides for both the changing operating structures of the workplace as well as the requirements of business so they can effectively operate, remain competitive and continue to employ people.
Flexible work must go beyond just WFH
University of Technology Sydney's Rowena Ditzell, who specialises in the future of work, said work from home is just one form of flexible work.
She was concerned by focusing on just one form of flexible work it may lead to other arrangements being neglected.
I am a proponent of working from home in the right role and the right context, Dr Ditzell said.
But by focusing on just one aspect of flexibility, you could be making things harder for some people.
People who can't access work from home, they may be able to access flexible hours.
It's possibly simplifying flexibility, so somewhat ironically making things less flexible for workers.
The Working with Women's Alliance said in its submission flexibility must go beyond just work from home and include all patterns of work.
It said there needs to be practical approaches that reflect the requirements of different roles and industries.
The group highlighted a range of roles within female dominated industries, such as early childhood education, healthcare and community services that could not be done at home.
It said higher-income roles, which were often male-dominated, could accommodate remote work easier, and would likely benefit most by the changes.
Without deliberate measures, this amendment risks widening existing gender and income disparities across the workforce, its submission read.
Flexibility policies are needed that recognise and address the needs of employees who cannot work from home.
For example, we consistently hear that front-line workers want better access to secure part-time work.
Disability group fears broadening WFH eligibility may lead to discrimination
University of Canberra's Bruce Baer Arnold said any amendments to the Fair Work Act must keep in mind the history of discrimination against people with disabilities.
We have a history of inappropriate discrimination in Australian law, particularly in workplaces, Dr Arnold, an associate professor in the school of law, said.
Fitting you into our work practices might involve a bit of effort. It's easier just to exclude you right up front.
We need to be just and fair rather than sort of stigmatising and excluding particular people.
People with Disability Western Australia said in its submission it was concerned broadening changes to the Fair Work Act may inadvertently discriminate against people with disabilities.
The advocacy group said proposed amendments in the bill regarding work from home would see broadening the category of worker who could request the arrangement.
These categories of workers who face disadvantages in their personal lives will once again be implicitly discriminated against at workplaces across Australia, the submission read.
For some people with disabilities and other disadvantages, working from home five days a week is vital.
Normalising forced returns two or three days a week through tweaking legislation is also not in our interest, or in the interest of many workers needing reasonable adjustments, including the categories of workers currently named in the Fair Work Act.
