Employ­ers should be aware that employ­ees have the right to request a change in work­ing arrange­ments to assist the employ­ee in car­ing for a child. Such a request is often made while an employ­ee is on parental leave and is often a request to return to work in a part time capac­i­ty. The employ­er may refuse such a request on rea­son­able busi­ness grounds.

The right to request” (as it is called) is enshrined in the Nation­al Employ­ment Stan­dards con­tained in the new Fair Work Act. It is avail­able to employ­ees who are par­ents and who have been employed for over 12 months. It may be made in respect of a child:

  • under school age; or
  • who is under 18 and has a disability.

The request must be in writ­ing and must set out the details for the change sought and the rea­sons for the change.

Long term casu­als also have the right to request such arrangements.

What the employ­er must do if it receives a request

With­in 21 days the employ­er must give the employ­ee a writ­ten response to the request stat­ing whether the employ­ee grants or refus­es the request.

If the employ­er decides to refuse the request, the writ­ten response must include details of the rea­sons for the refusal.

Employ­ers should con­sid­er requests on a case by case basis. Fun­da­men­tal to the Employer’s con­sid­er­a­tion will be what exact­ly the leg­is­la­tion means by a change in work­ing arrange­ments” and also what jus­ti­fies a refusal on rea­son­able busi­ness grounds”.

What is meant by a change in work­ing arrangements”?

The explana­to­ry mem­o­ran­dum to the Fair Work Act states that exam­ples of changes in work­ing arrange­ments include changes in hours of work, changes in pat­terns of work and changes in loca­tion of work.

Accord­ing­ly there is an argu­ment that a change in work­ing arrange­ments does not extend to the employ­ee chang­ing from a full time posi­tion to a part time position.

What is meant by rea­son­able busi­ness grounds”?

The explana­to­ry mem­o­ran­dum to the Fair Work Act states that the rea­son­able­ness of the grounds is a mat­ter to be assessed in the cir­cum­stances that apply at the time the request is made. Rea­sons for refusal may include:

  • The effect on the work­place and the employer’s business 
  • The inabil­i­ty to organ­ise work among exist­ing staff
  • The inabil­i­ty to recruit a replace­ment employee
Escape clause for employers

The Fair Work Act states that no order can be made under the Fair Work Act against the Employ­er sim­ply for refus­ing the request on rea­son­able busi­ness grounds.

How­ev­er, the employ­er still needs to have com­plied with its oblig­a­tions to respond to the request with­in 21 days and if the request is refused, to give rea­sons for the refusal.

Dis­crim­i­na­tion law also needs to be considered

Despite the above escape claus­es, the law does not sim­ply allow a carte blanche for Employ­ers to refuse a requests on rea­son­able busi­ness grounds.

A female employ­ee whose request has been refused may seek orders under the Sex Dis­crim­i­na­tion Act.

In a series of Fed­er­al Court cas­es, women who have encoun­tered dif­fi­cul­ties when seek­ing part time employ­ment after return­ing to work from mater­ni­ty leave have suc­cess­ful­ly argued that refusal to allow part time work has the effect of dis­ad­van­tag­ing women.

Accord­ing­ly, where a request is to be refused on rea­son­able busi­ness grounds, employ­ers should seek legal advice as to whether dis­crim­i­na­tion law will apply in the spe­cif­ic circumstances.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

The risk of builder insol­ven­cy mid way through a con­struc­tion project is real (and will prob­a­bly be expensive)

Intro­duc­tionThis arti­cle pro­vides guid­ance to those under­tak­ing con­struc­tion works and iden­ti­fies a num­ber of con­tract pro­vi­sions which, if includ­ed in the…

Cross-Com­pa­ny Secu­ri­ty and Liq­uida­tor Chal­lenges: Full Fed­er­al Court Restores Cer­tain­ty in CEG Direct Secu­ri­ties v Coop­er [2025] FCAFC 47

A sig­nif­i­cant deci­sion from the Full Fed­er­al Court has clar­i­fied the lim­its of liq­uida­tors’ pow­ers to unwind cross-com­pa­ny secu­ri­ty grant­ed…

Copy­right and Gen­er­a­tive AI: what Aus­tralia can learn from the Meta and Anthrop­ic Rulings

In 2025, two U.S. court deci­sions, Kadrey v. Meta and Bartz v. Anthrop­ic, have pro­vid­ed the first real judi­cial answers…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM Online on 21 Octo­ber 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“What hap­pens when an employ­ee runs out of sick leave?”, pub­lished in HRM…

Press Release | New Asso­ciate Appoint­ment — Isabel­la Machin

With a dual back­ground in account­ing and law, Isabel­la brings a depth of com­mer­cial insight and exper­tise to the firm across a wide…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, The reac­tion to Char­lie Kirk’s assas­si­na­tion and its impli­ca­tions for employ­ment law”, pub­lished in Lawyers Week­ly on 26 Sep­tem­ber 2025

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“The reac­tion to Char­lie Kirk’s assas­si­na­tion and its impli­ca­tions for employ­ment law”, pub­lished…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information