She asked for two days from home. The university said no. She got one anyway
A student advisor asked Victoria University for two work-from-home days a week. She got one - by order.
The Fair Work Commission has ordered Victoria University to let a full-time student advisor work from home one day a week, after finding the university could lawfully refuse her original two-day request - but stepping in with a compromise anyway.
The worker, based at the university's busiest campus, had been quietly managing her own flexibility for more than a year. She had been taking one day of long service leave every week - usually Wednesdays - but that entitlement was about to run out.
On June 27, 2025, she formally requested a hybrid arrangement: two days working from home each week. Her grounds were straightforward. She was over 55, commuting was increasingly tiring, and several of her duties - phone appointments, email enquiries, processing extension requests - could be done remotely.
The request cited section 65 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which gives employees in certain circumstances - including workers aged 55 and over - the right to request flexible working arrangements.
The university pushed back
The university's initial response, on July 17, 2025, did not address the request directly. Instead, it asked for medical evidence and proposed a Rostered Day Off cycle as an alternative. The worker did not think medical proof was required to show that commuting fatigue was age-related.
A meeting on August 7, 2025 brought both sides together. The worker explained the link between her age, her fatigue, and the request. She listed the tasks she could handle from home, offered to be flexible on which days she worked remotely, and said she was willing to come in four or five days a week during peak periods.
The university was not persuaded. On August 14, 2025 - 48 days after the original request, well past the 21-day statutory deadline - it formally declined the two-day request. The written response pointed to City Tower, the busiest of the university's six student service centres, and argued that in-person availability was critical. But it offered a counter-proposal: one work-from-home day on Fridays, on a trial basis until December.
The worker pushed back. She noted the university's data covered its busiest months and did not reflect the quieter period she was proposing for the trial. The university reviewed additional data and stood firm. City Tower had recorded roughly 1,000 more walk-in visits than the Footscray Park campus even during the quieter August-to-December stretch.
By September 2025, the worker's union - the National Tertiary Education Industry Union - had stepped in. Negotiations went nowhere. She filed her application with the Commission on November 21, 2025.
What the Commission found
The decision, handed down on October 6, 2026, ran through the five requirements for a valid flexible work request established in the Full Bench decision Quirke v BSR Australia Ltd. Four were uncontested. The fifth - whether the worker had shown a sufficient connection between being over 55 and needing to work from home - was where the university dug in.
The Commission was satisfied the connection was there. The worker had explained at the time of her request that she was over 55, that commuting was tiring, and that working from home would help. Critically, the Act does not require medical evidence to support a flexible work request. Discussions between employer and employee may be enough.
She had obtained two medical certificates - one in September 2025, another in January 2026 - but only provided them when the matter reached arbitration. The Commission did not consider them as part of the original request.
On the refusal itself, the Commission found the university had reasonable business grounds. The core purpose of a student advisor role was to respond to walk-in enquiries - and the worker herself agreed under cross-examination that if a student walked in, everything else was secondary. Data showed City Tower handled 5,306 walk-in enquiries between March and August 2025. The university also argued it would not be financially viable to indefinitely hire casual staff to cover the worker's remote days.
But having reasonable grounds to refuse did not end the matter. Under section 65C of the Act, the Commission can order changes to working arrangements even where the refusal was lawful - provided there is no reasonable prospect of the dispute resolving on its own.
Given the months of failed negotiations, that threshold was met.
One day, Wednesdays, starting October 27
The order requires Victoria University to let the worker work from home on Wednesdays, commencing October 27, 2026. The parties must trial Wednesdays for at least six months, then consult and genuinely try to agree on a permanent work-from-home day. The arrangement stays in place until they do.
The Commission recommended Wednesdays rather than the university's proposed Fridays, noting the worker had previously taken that day as long service leave.
For HR teams handling flexible work requests from older workers, the practical takeaway is pointed: a lawful refusal is not necessarily the last word. Where genuine attempts to resolve a dispute have failed, the Commission can - and did - impose its own arrangement.
