Fair Work Commission Upholds Dismissal Over Return-to-Office Policy

The Fair Work Commission has affirmed the dismissal of Richard Johnson, a Melbourne man terminated by print software company PaperCut. Johnson was dismissed for failing to comply with the company's return-to-office policy, despite his employment contract allowing him to work from home, subject to adherence to company policies and requirements to work at other locations.

Policy Implementation

PaperCut introduced a "return to hybrid work" policy in August 2023, with the goal of employees attending the office three days a week by January 2025. In December 2024, PaperCut formally informed Johnson that his official work location would change to the office, effective January 1, 2025. Johnson contested this change, citing his interpretation of his contract, which he believed granted him the right to work remotely.

Dismissal and Legal Challenge

Despite seeking legal counsel and steadfastly maintaining his contractual interpretation, Johnson did not comply with the new policy. PaperCut issued warnings, making it clear that non-compliance could lead to disciplinary action, including termination. Johnson was ultimately dismissed on June 19, 2025, due to his failure to adhere to the hybrid work policy. He subsequently argued that his sacking was "disproportionate and harsh."

Commission's Ruling

Commissioner Scott Connolly ruled that PaperCut's decision was both lawful and reasonable.

The Commission found that Johnson's contract did not provide an unconditional right to work from home and that PaperCut's direction was within the scope of his employment terms.

The ruling also highlighted that Johnson did not request a flexible work arrangement or provide any personal reasons for his non-compliance. This contrasted with a separate Westpac case where an employee successfully challenged a similar policy based on specific life or carer circumstances.

Expert Commentary

Professor emerita Joellen Riley from Sydney University commented that employment contracts typically grant employers significant flexibility in altering work terms, locations, and other aspects. She advised that individuals seeking to challenge return-to-office directives should first explore requesting flexible work arrangements, noting that such rights are often limited to specific circumstances like caring responsibilities or disability.