COVID-19 lockdowns have undoubtedly reshaped workplace dynamics, introducing more flexible work-from-home arrangements. However, many employers are now directing employees back to the workplace, either full-time or in a hybrid setup. In recent examples, the NSW Government directed public sector employees back to physical offices in August 2024, and Amazon mandated its corporate staff to work in-office five days a week.
When implementing these changes, it’s common for some employees to resist returning to on-site work or cite medical reasons to remain working from home.
In a recent case, *Reinmuth v James Cook University [2024] FWC 1968*, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) confirmed that an employer’s decision to require an employee to work on-site under a hybrid model was reasonable, even when the employee provided medical advice stating she could only work from home.
The employee, an Assistant HR Administrator, had been allowed to work exclusively from home for two years due to a medical condition. As restrictions eased in June 2022, her employer, James Cook University, directed her to return on-site for three days a week, as per the HR team’s hybrid model. The employee often took leave on her required office days, citing flare-ups of her condition.
In mid-2023, her doctor recommended that she work exclusively from home due to difficulties commuting. The University, however, upheld its hybrid expectation, suggesting alternate travel options and support measures on office days.
The situation continued until the University arranged an independent medical examination (IME), which confirmed that a short commute posed a challenge for the employee. In response, the University implemented a gradual return plan with one on-campus day per week. Despite these accommodations, the employee continued to take leave on her scheduled office days.
The employee eventually resigned, claiming the University’s refusal to allow exclusive work-from-home forced her resignation. The University objected to this claim, asserting she had resigned voluntarily.
The FWC found that the University had acted reasonably in its handling of the situation, making substantial efforts to support the employee’s return under the same hybrid arrangement as her team. The FWC did not accept that the University’s actions were intended to end the employment relationship, nor did it find that the University’s conduct directly led to her resignation. The application was dismissed.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This case offers reassurance to employers managing workplace returns, whether full-time or hybrid. The FWC upheld that the University acted reasonably by enforcing its hybrid model, particularly given the steps taken to support the employee’s transition and the collaborative nature of her role.
Note: This blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law disclaims liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on this blog’s content.*
