His contract said "permitted" to work from home—but that's not a guarantee
An employee who refused to return to the office despite repeated warnings has lost his unfair dismissal bid, in a ruling backing employers on hybrid policy enforcement.
In a decision handed down on 19 January 2026, Commissioner Connolly dismissed the application brought by Richard Johnson against PaperCut Software, a Melbourne-based company. The finding offers reassurance for employers: return-to-office policies can be enforced, even when employees insist their contracts say otherwise.
Johnson joined PaperCut in April 2022, during the tail end of pandemic-era remote work. His contract contained a mobility clause stating he was "permitted" to work from home "in line with relevant PaperCut policy" and that he "may be required to work at other locations from time to time."
When PaperCut rolled out a hybrid work policy in August 2023, requiring staff to attend the office three days a week by January 2025, Johnson dug in. He maintained his contract guaranteed him the right to work remotely and that any direction to the contrary was a breach of that agreement.
PaperCut saw it differently. The company had attempted to amend Johnson's contract back in August 2022 to make his office obligations explicit, but he declined to sign. Undeterred, PaperCut pressed ahead with its hybrid policy, developed through staff consultation and phased in over 16 months.
What followed was a protracted back-and-forth. From December 2024, Johnson attended multiple meetings where the company outlined its expectations and offered transitional arrangements. He sought legal advice, which he shared with PaperCut, suggesting the direction was unlawful. The company reviewed it, disagreed, and held its ground.
By May 2025, patience had worn thin. Johnson received a final warning on 20 May. On 11 June, he was told in no uncertain terms: attend three days a week starting immediately, or face termination. He did not comply. His employment ended on 20 June 2025.
Commissioner Connolly's ruling turned on the meaning of one word: "permitted." The Commission found that being permitted to work from home meant PaperCut allowed it—not that Johnson had an ironclad right to it. That permission, the Commissioner noted, was always conditional on company policy, and policies can evolve.
"I am not persuaded that Mr Johnson's interpretation of the terms of his employment contract provide him any basis to reach a conclusion he had an unconditional right to work from home," Commissioner Connolly wrote.
The Commission accepted that Johnson genuinely believed he was in the right. But genuine belief, the ruling made clear, does not equate to sound legal footing. And after months of warnings and opportunities to comply, dismissal was not a disproportionate response. PaperCut, the Commissioner found, had no other real or reasonable option.
For HR professionals still grappling with return-to-office resistance, the takeaway is plain: a well-consulted policy, clearly communicated expectations, and a fair process can withstand scrutiny—even when an employee arrives armed with legal advice.
