Employee sacked for failing to return to office, despite contract allowing WFH
A Melbourne man who refused to comply with a company’s return to office policy was unable to reverse his dismissal despite signing a contract allowing him to work from home.
Last week the Fair Work Commission ruled that printing software company PaperCut’s decision to dismiss an employee who did not follow its hybrid workplace policy was not harsh, unfair or unreasonable. The employer told the commission that the employee did not give any personal reason for not going to the office.
This contrasts with the case of a Westpac employee who last year successfully challenged the bank’s office attendance policy after requesting flexible working arrangements under a section of the law for workers with various living or caregiving circumstances.
As businesses increasingly shift from remote working to requiring minimum office attendance, the commission is dealing with cases that require it to decide whether employees who want to work remotely have the right to do so.
Richard Johnson, a product engineer who started working at PaperCut in April 2022, signed an employment contract at the time that required him to “comply with such reasonable and lawful instructions and all policies, rules and regulations as provided by PaperCut from time to time,” but also allowed him to work from his personal home “in accordance with applicable PaperCut policy.”
The contract also states that he “may be required to work elsewhere from time to time” and does not specify his actual place of employment.
When Johnson started working with the firm, PaperCut’s policy allowed employees to work from home and their offices “as possible and appropriate as a hybrid workplace.”
The Fair Work Commission’s decision stated that the Victorian government lifted its strong advice for employees to work from home on 25 February 2022 and encouraged a return to the office as the country recovers from the pandemic.
In August 2022, PaperCut attempted to amend Johnson’s contract to clarify that Johnson’s place of employment included his personal residence as well as the PaperCut office, saying the initial contract was incorrect.
According to the decision, Johnson did not agree to the change, arguing that his contract allowed him to work remotely, but he did attend the PaperCut office “intermittently and as necessary.”
Following staff consultation and some trials of hybrid working, PaperCut developed and implemented a “return to hybrid working” policy and model, which was officially introduced in August 2023, with the aim of having employees attend the office three days a week by January 2025.
In December 2024, PaperCut told Johnson that his workplace would be changed from his personal residence to the PaperCut office on January 1, 2025, and that he would be required to comply with the change.
While Johnson was seeking legal advice and said PaperCut’s request was a breach of its contract, the company said it was confident the request was not a breach of its contract and was “both legal and reasonable.”
PaperCut stated that the main place of work was not specified in his contract and that he was required to work from time to time in places other than his personal residence, in line with company policy, and warned that failure to comply “could result in disciplinary action.”
A final warning letter was sent to Johnson on May 20, 2025, stating that he would face disciplinary action “until termination of his employment contract” if he did not meet his three-day mandate.
On June 19, Johnson was fired for failing to comply with PaperCut’s hybrid work policy. “After his dismissal, Mr. Johnson could not find an alternative job despite all his efforts,” the decision said.
Johnson argued that his dismissal, when there were no other issues with his employment, was “disproportionate and harsh” and that, given the possibility that his interpretation, supported by external legal advice, was correct, the company could have pursued more proportionate options, such as a court declaration of contractual rights.
Johnson also said he was told that he would not be forced to sign the proposed change to his contract, that other employees continued to work remotely and that his contract allowed him to work remotely.
However, he admitted that he did not comply with the company’s instructions and was dismissed for this failure to comply.
PaperCut argued that Johnson was given “sufficient time and opportunity” to understand and comply with the instruction and was warned “clearly and unambiguously” that failure to comply would result in termination of employment.
The company also noted that Johnson did not request a flexible work arrangement or give any personal reason for not complying with the office attendance policy.
Commissioner Scott Connolly said PaperCut’s order was legal because it contained “nothing illegal” and was within Johnson’s contract, which did not give him the unconditional right to work from home.
Connolly also said PaperCut’s request was not unreasonable given the steps it had taken to transition and explain new working arrangements. He also said PaperCut made it “clear” to Johnson what would happen if he did not follow their instructions.
University of Sydney professor emerita Joellen Riley said relying on the terms of an employment contract rarely yielded much benefit and each decision depended heavily on the specific facts of the case.
“Many employment contracts have clauses that give the employer a high degree of flexibility to change your role, location and other aspects of your job,” he said.
Those who want to challenge an employer’s order to return to the office should first request flexible working arrangements, Riley said. However, he noted that this right only applies to people who meet certain requirements, such as caring for elderly parents or children, being disabled or over 55, and there is no guarantee that this request will be accepted.
“It’s not just for someone who thinks they want to work from home because it’s easier to go out at lunch and practice your golf swing,” he said.
The Market Summary newsletter is a summary of the day’s transactions. Let’s each take ittoday afternoon.
Millie Muroi is the economics writer for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He was previously an economics correspondent for the Canberra Press Gallery and a banking writer in Sydney.Connect with: X or email.
