Back

Workplace values are undergoing a profound transformation. Across the globe, employees increasingly prioritise flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance, driving a surge in demand for hybrid and remote arrangements. Meanwhile, there is also a marked ‘return-to-office’ momentum as employers seek to strengthen collaboration, foster innovation, and reinforce company culture, creating a growing tension between evolving employee expectations and operational pragmatism. This recalibration is occurring against a backdrop of heightened legal, reputational and talent retention pressures, alongside rising disputes around flexible working, restructuring and leadership capability. The Australian decision in Chandler v Westpac highlights these competing dynamics by underscoring that employers cannot rely on broad policy preferences or abstract assertions about in person work to refuse flexibility, but must instead engage in a genuine, consultative and evidence based assessment of individual requests. The key lesson is that flexibility disputes increasingly turn, not on whether employers value office attendance, but on whether they can demonstrate role specific, proportionate and procedurally fair reasons for refusal, reflecting a broader global shift towards more employee centred, transparent and accountable workplace decision making, even in jurisdictions like Hong Kong where no formal statutory right to request to work from home exists.

Facts and the decision

The employee, Ms...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMixwFBVV95cUxPME03RHZNNEJnY0p1T0U5bVl4...