Can an older worker's request for a compressed work week hold up when their motivations go beyond retirement?
A Fair Work Commission decision has confirmed that older workers can rely on age when requesting flexible working arrangements even where their motivations extend beyond an immediate transition from work.
In Paul Murray v Watpac Construction Pty. Ltd., Commissioner Simpson dismissed a jurisdictional objection by Watpac Construction, finding that the employee's desire to transition towards retirement and pursue personal creative projects was enough to satisfy the legislative nexus required under the Act.
From request to dispute
Murray, a 67-year-old Services Manager at Watpac's Woodford Youth Detention Centre Project in Queensland, submitted a formal flexible work arrangement request in January 2026 to compress his working week from five days to four while maintaining his contracted hours.
In his request, Murray said he was seeking the change "to facilitate a transition to retirement by improving my work-life balance and allowing me to pursue personal creative projects."
He told the Commission he was not yet financially able to retire fully and was building alternative income streams while continuing to meet his contractual obligations.
Watpac refused in February 2026, citing reasonable business grounds including the operational demands of the project, the impact on deliverables and timelines, and difficulties in redistributing Murray's duties.
The company offered a counter-arrangement that still required a five-day presence, which Murray rejected on the basis that it failed to address his original request and included no trial period.
After further exchanges in which Watpac maintained its position, Murray filed a dispute with the Commission in March 2026.
The jurisdictional challenge
Watpac raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing the request was not validly made under the Fair Work Act because Murray had not established the required connection between his age and the flexibility sought.
The company argued his real motivation was monetising an external commercial venture, not accommodating an age-related transition from work, and pointed to the absence of any retirement timeline as undermining his claim.
Watpac submitted that more than meeting the age threshold was required, there needed to be an objective and rational nexus between the employee's circumstances and the specific arrangement sought.
Commissioner Simpson was not persuaded.
"I am satisfied in this case there is a nexus between the Applicant's age and the reason for the request," the decision states. "The request is because of the circumstance of his age. The Applicant made clear in his request that the reason for the request was to facilitate a transition to retirement by improving his work-life balance and allowing him to pursue personal creative projects."
The Commissioner further noted that Murray, at 67, satisfied the age threshold and that the connection between his circumstances and the request had been established.
The jurisdictional objection was dismissed and the matter listed for a further mention, with the substantive question of whether Watpac's refusal was on reasonable business grounds yet to be determined.
What this means for employers
Queensland-based firm Clifford Gouldson Lawyers, which analysed the decision, said the ruling highlights the importance of understanding the connection between an employee's circumstances and the flexibility requested.
"The decision confirms that the connection between age and a flexible work request can be broader than a direct reduction in hours or an immediate retirement plan," the firm said in its insights.
It further outlined three key obligations for employers when handling such requests:
- Carefully assess whether the required connection exists between the employee's circumstances and the flexibility sought
- Avoid assuming a request falls outside the legislation simply because the employee's motivations are broader than the obvious purpose of the provision
- Ensure any refusal is genuinely supported by reasonable business grounds
