Software Engineer's Work-From-Home Standoff Ends in Defeat as Fair Work Commission Backs Employer
A software engineer's high-profile standoff over working from home has concluded with a decisive defeat, after the Fair Work Commission ruled that his refusal to return to the office justified his dismissal. The landmark case, involving PaperCut software engineer Richard Johnson, has significant implications for the evolving landscape of hybrid work arrangements across the United Kingdom and beyond.
The Contractual Dispute and Company Policy Shift
Richard Johnson, a software engineer based in Melbourne, argued that his 2022 employment contract granted him an unconditional right to work from his home. He contended that PaperCut's subsequent requirement for him to attend the office three days per week breached this contract, rendering his dismissal unfair. However, the Commission found that PaperCut was entitled to direct Johnson to comply with its hybrid work policy, which was introduced following extensive trials and staff consultation as the business transitioned from pandemic-era arrangements.
When Johnson joined the company in April 2022, his contract stated he was permitted to work from home in line with existing policy, but also that he might be required to work from other locations. It further mandated compliance with all reasonable and lawful directions. Initially, PaperCut allowed Johnson to work remotely with only occasional office visits. Yet, after the Victorian Government withdrew its work-from-home recommendation and the company conducted its own hybrid trials, PaperCut introduced a new policy in August 2023. This policy required employees to attend the office three days a week by January 2025.
Escalation and Dismissal Following Repeated Refusals
In December 2024, Johnson was informed that his primary work location would change from his home to the office effective January 1. He was told he did not need to agree to the change but was required to comply and could discuss transitional arrangements. Over the following months, Johnson persistently rejected the direction, insisting his contract entitled him to work entirely from home. PaperCut issued multiple written warnings, including a final warning, stating that failure to follow the direction could result in dismissal.
On May 30, Johnson's legal representatives wrote to PaperCut maintaining that the return-to-office requirement was not lawful. At a meeting on June 11, PaperCut reiterated that Johnson would be dismissed if he did not comply. When he continued to refuse, he was sacked on June 19. PaperCut also sought to clarify his contract wording to state he may be permitted to work from home in line with company policy, but Johnson declined the amendment.
Commission's Ruling on Contract Interpretation and Reasonableness
The Commission rejected Johnson's argument, finding that PaperCut acted within its rights to enforce the hybrid policy and dismiss him for non-compliance. Commissioner Scott Connolly stated that, based on the contract wording, a reasonable person would find PaperCut had agreed 'he could work from home at the time the contract was entered into', but only if it was consistent with the company's policy. 'Working from home is something PaperCut "allowed" him to do,' Mr Connolly said. 'It was not, however, as he believed, a "right" he was entitled to without caveat.'
Commissioner Connolly emphasised that under the contract, if the company's policy changed, working from home might no longer be allowed. He ruled the request to attend the office on a hybrid basis was reasonable. 'I also consider the numerous opportunities that were provided to him to understand their position, proposed transitional arrangements and the time he was given to comply with the direction further demonstrate reasonableness,' Mr Connolly said. He observed that PaperCut had warned Johnson about the consequences of his failure to comply, and his conduct left PaperCut with 'no other real or reasonable option but to bring his employment to an end'.
Broader Context and Expert Commentary on Flexible Work
The Fair Work Commission is handling an increasing number of disputes over flexible work arrangements, most notably the case of a Westpac employee who successfully challenged the bank's office-attendance policy last year. Only certain workers have a legal right to request flexible arrangements, such as those caring for children or elderly parents, individuals with a disability, or employees aged over 55.
During the Westpac dispute, the bank defended its hybrid work policy, arguing that a minimum level of office attendance was essential for effective teamwork and business operations. It also warned that allowing one worker to work remotely full-time to avoid a long commute would undermine its ability to require other staff to attend the office at least two days a week.
Sydney University professor emeritus Joellen Riley noted that relying on employment contract wording offers workers limited protection, as outcomes are highly dependent on the specific facts of each case. She advised employees wanting to challenge a return-to-office direction to first consider whether they are eligible to request flexible work arrangements. 'Most employment contracts contain clauses giving employers broad flexibility to change your duties, location and other aspects of the role,' she told the Sydney Morning Herald. 'Working from home isn't simply for someone who thinks they'd prefer it because it's easier to duck out at lunchtime and practise their golf swing.'
This ruling underscores the delicate balance between employee preferences and employer prerogatives in the post-pandemic work environment, highlighting the importance of clear contractual terms and adaptive policies.
