Hyro Blog

All my super HR nerds! We’ve been waiting for this one.

It was a big front page news day on the Australian Business Review today, outlining a Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision that has apparently rocked the world of working from home.

Employees can apply to the FWC if a flexible working arrangement they have requested is denied by the employer. There has been some uncertainty and sensitivity around this right to apply, and we have been waiting for some real life experiences, rulings, and comments on post pandemic requests.

A case was recently heard where an employee alleged that their employer’s refusal to approve their request of working 100% remotely was unreasonable. The employee requested the arrangement on the basis of their caring responsibilities for their young child.

I have seen so many articles today talking about this; and when reading most of them, it reads something like ‘worker wanting to work 100% remote and employer saying no….employer wins…’

It’s not that simple and I would argue its more of a denial of a request to work remotely due to caring responsibilities, which is really a separate request covered and protected by different regulations.

The employee’s formal request was about caring responsibilities for their young child and the refusal was also based on the individual employee’s productivity level.

The FWC consider a few things in its ruling:

• Employer Policy – staff are required 40% of their work week in the office
• Employer had genuinely tried to accommodate the employees caring duties
• Employees productivity was down to 50%, well below their 85% target
• Productivity and training needs – acknowledgement that face to face interactions are essential to productivity and learning
• Collaboration and Culture – the belief that office time fosters team culture and provides opportunities for collaboration.
• Psychosocial aspects – (a really hot topic in remote work) the psychosocial benefits of in person work are intangible and contribute to employee wellbeing

Ultimately, if you haven’t heard, the tribunal ruled that the refusal of the request to work 100% remote was not unreasonable, and that face to face interactions in the office helped improve productivity, training and overall culture.

Although this decision has the potential to empower employers to refuse requests of flexible working, I think there are more pressing decisions to come. If this employee had an above target productivity score of 90%, would the refusal still be considered reasonable?

I predict a bigger issue to come. When employers start to mandate the return to work and their most productive, talented, employees want more flexibility or full flexibility, there could be a mass exit of top talent.

We’re going to see more and more companies that are fully remote and working on a global scale with international employees working for a local company. Laws, regulations, agreements, and awards are going to have to be re-written.

Do you remember when companies up and moved their operations to countries where salaries and standards were much lower? While still charging the same amount to their customers? Saving companies a fortune, and creating record profits? We’re going back there.

Working nomads are everywhere. The rise of social media has shown us that you can have true work life balance, if you really want it.

Companies might be forced to pay more than when they offshored previously, but it’ll be less frequent and potentially project based, and maybe a little less on the hour.

Some of us are going to need to adapt, and we need to start now.

I don’t think its going to be as dramatic as it was 10-15 years ago, where people will lose their jobs and livelihood for the cheaper labour. But its going to disrupt the way of work, and top talent are going to have what they want. Whether that’s in the office 40% of the week, or anywhere in the world 100% of the week.

Stay tuned….

I would love to hear your thoughts and predictions on the future of work. Send your questions and comments to contact@hyroblog.com