Commissioner finds 'culture and cohesion' arguments fall short against caring responsibilities
An office-attendance push at proptech firm Reapit has been pared back by the Fair Work Commission, after a working mother fought to keep her remote arrangement.
Handed down on 14 May 2026, the decision in Laura Kliffen v Reapit Employment Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1766 is the latest in a growing line of flexible work disputes testing how far employers can go in pulling staff back to the office. For HR leaders watching the post-pandemic recalibration, it is a useful read on what counts as a reasonable business ground, and what does not.
The employee, a part-time T1 Support Specialist working four days a week, had worked from her home in Berowra Heights since starting with Jemini Enterprises Pty Ltd in 2016. Her employment transferred to IRE Pty Ltd in December 2022, and then to Reapit after it acquired IRE in 2023. She is the parent of two young children, one of whom has been diagnosed with a range of conditions and can need additional support around drop-offs.
In May 2024, Reapit directed her to start working from the Sydney office two days a week, citing a regional directive aimed at culture, training and post-acquisition integration. She responded with a request under section 65 of the Fair Work Act, asking to keep working from home, or alternatively to attend the office fortnightly on a Monday, or to start at 10am on office days. She pointed to her caring responsibilities, her daughter's anxiety and a commute of around one hour and 20 minutes each way.
Over the following months, the parties cycled through several arrangements and a performance improvement plan that was closed out in early 2025 with no further action. Reapit ultimately declined her preferred fully remote setup, relying on grounds including the need to drive culture and team cohesion through its rebrand and the launch of its ReapitOne product in June 2025, efficiency concerns, the impracticality of reshaping other employees' arrangements, and an obligation to treat staff consistently.
Commissioner Matheson accepted some of that reasoning, but not all of it. The employee's immediate team of 11 was already spread across Manila, Brisbane, Sydney, the Sunshine Coast and Melbourne, with several colleagues fully remote. Against that backdrop, the Commissioner found it unclear how her continued remote work would force changes to anyone else's arrangements, and noted that Reapit had not elaborated in detail on the claimed efficiency loss. Fairness, she observed, can sometimes mean extending additional support and flexibility to employees in particular circumstances.
The documentation history did Reapit few favours. The IRE contract named the employer's business premises as the place of work, but the letter of offer recorded the employee's home address as her work location "in addition to various locations", at a time when IRE's only premises were in Queensland. The later transfer letter from Reapit reassured her that the change would not alter day-to-day operations.
Balancing all of that, the Commission ordered a middle path. From the week of 8 June 2026, the employee can continue working from home, but must attend the Sydney office one day a fortnight on a day she nominates, starting no later than 10:30am, and making up any time within the fortnight under the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020.
For HR teams, the lessons are familiar but worth repeating. Reasonable business grounds need to be specific and evidenced, not slogans. Contracts, offer letters and transfer communications need to line up, particularly during business transfers. And long-running flexibility disputes deserve careful handling, especially when caring responsibilities and health issues are in the mix.
