Melbourne employee fired after refusing to return to the office

A Melbourne worker has lost his job and a legal battle after defying his company’s work-from-home limits in a post-pandemic dispute.

In July last year, Richard Johnson claimed he was unfairly fired from his job at PaperCut after he refused to limit the days he worked from home, arguing his contract gave him the right to do so.

The Fair Work Commission announced its decision last week, saying Mr Johnson’s dismissal was “not harsh, unfair or unreasonable”.

“Based on these findings, I have determined that his application should be denied,” Commissioner Scott Connolly said.

Mr. Johnson started working at the software company as a product engineer in April 2022.

He signed a contract agreeing to “comply with such reasonable and lawful instructions and all policies, rules and regulations provided by PaperCut from time to time.”

The contract allowed the employee to work from a home address “in accordance with the relevant PaperCut policy.”

He also added that Mr Johnson “may be required to work elsewhere from time to time” but did not specify his primary place of work.

When Mr Johnson started working at the company, just emerging from the Covid-19 pandemic, PaperCut allowed employees to work in a hybrid mix of office and home working.

In February 2022, the Victorian government lifted its strong advice for employees to work from home, encouraging employees to return to the office.

Mr. Johnson was aware of this change and complied with PaperCut’s hybrid working policy.

In August 2022, PaperCut highlighted an “incorrect amendment” to Mr Johnson’s contract, stating that in his original contract only his personal residence was listed as a place of work and not the PaperCut office.

PaperCut tried to arrange the first contract, which Mr. Johnson rejected.

The employee said his contract only allowed him to work remotely.

In 2024, Mr Johnson’s manager decided that the best way to deal with Mr Johnson’s refusal to come into the office was for PaperCut to encourage employees to be in the office three days a week from the beginning of 2025, through its “return to work” policy.

Mr Johnson complied with the policy and was said to have changed his workplace from his personal residence to the PaperCut office in December 2024.

But he said the proposed change “violated the mobility clause in his contract (allowing him to work from his home address).”

Mr Johnson and his employer discussed the reason and meaning of mobility and exchanged legal advice.

His lawyers argued that the “right” to work from his personal residence included in the article did not impose a restriction on the right to work from home.

PaperCut maintained its view that it was “legal” and “reasonable” to direct Mr Johnson to return to a hybrid way of working.

It was also emphasized that “failure to comply with such reasonable and lawful instructions may result in disciplinary action” within the scope of the employment contract.

During this time, Mr Johnson admitted that he had failed to comply with his employers’ instructions to return to the office.

In March, Mr Johnson was again reminded that disciplinary action would be taken if he failed to meet expectations of being on duty three days a week.

Two months later, in May, he was sent a final warning letter warning him that extreme measures, including dismissal, would be taken if he did not meet three-day expectations within the next three weeks.

The employee came to the office only once, after May 20.

Mr. Johnson’s lawyers consulted with PaperCut’s lawyers for another month.

In his final warm-up in June, he said: “Richard, we want to be very clear: This letter is your final warning of your non-compliance. You are required to attend the office three days a week… please understand that failure to meet this attendance requirement… will result in disciplinary action, which may include termination of employment.”

Mr Johnson again admitted failing to comply with instructions and was sacked five days later.

Mr Johnson later applied for unfair dismissal, stating that he accepted that he had failed to comply with his employer’s instructions, but that this was not a valid reason for dismissal.

He said the decision was “disproportionate and harsh,” adding that there were no other issues with his employment beside the work location dispute.

He also said he was told during the hiring process that his position would not require in-office involvement.

Commissioner Connolly ultimately found that the employee’s termination was “not harsh, unfair or unreasonable.”

“Obviously, the instruction contained no illegality,” he said.

“I am not persuaded that Mr Johnson’s interpretation of the terms of his employment contract provides him with any basis for concluding that he has an unconditional right to work from home.”

The commissioner also added that PaperCut had offered transition options and made it “clearly clear” what would happen if Mr Johnson did not comply.

“This application is rejected because I find that Mr Johnson’s dismissal was not harsh, unfair or unreasonable,” the commissioner said.