Victorian Council Worker's Work-From-Home Bid Rejected Despite Age and Fatigue Claims

A Victorian council employee aged over 55 has lost his bid to extend his work-from-home arrangements to four days a week, after the Fair Work Commission ruled his employer had reasonable grounds for keeping him in the office more regularly. The decision, handed down this week, rejected arguments that age-related fatigue and a family member's need for the car were sufficient justification for the change.

The Request and Why It Was Refused

Steve Polak, a planning and building liaison officer at Macedon Ranges Shire Council in Victoria, already had approval to work remotely three days a week when he lodged a formal request in November 2024 to push that arrangement to four days.

Polak put forward several reasons for the change: he was over 55, experienced what he described as work-related fatigue, and wanted to avoid driving in the dark. He also said he needed to lend his car to a family member who required it to travel to university. He contended that most of his duties could be carried out from home and that face-to-face meetings could be replaced with video calls.

The council rejected those arguments — not once, but twice — and also dismissed a subsequent appeal. Polak's manager noted that he could schedule his approved work-from-home days around the car-sharing issue, and emphasised that as a senior team member, his physical presence in the office carried genuine value.

"Increasing team engagement and strengthening in-person collaboration are key priorities," a manager told the commission, underscoring the council's position that Polak's experience and institutional knowledge were best shared in person.

Fair Work Commission Sides With the Council

In a ruling published on Monday, deputy Fair Work Commission president Kamal Farouque found that the council had demonstrated reasonable business grounds for declining to extend Polak's remote working entitlements.

Farouque acknowledged that Polak was capable of performing much of his work from home, but determined that this alone did not invalidate the employer's position. The council's desire to have Polak's experience accessible to the planning team — and to foster stronger in-office connections — was found to be a legitimate and sufficient reason to maintain the two-days-in-office requirement.

The council's HR manager confirmed the organisation had noted the commission's finding, but declined to comment further, citing the privacy of all parties involved.

A Contrasting Picture Across Similar Cases

The outcome stands in contrast to other recent Fair Work Commission decisions in which employees have successfully challenged employer pushback on flexible working arrangements.

In a notable earlier case, a major bank failed in its attempt to compel an employee who had relocated to a regional town to commute to its city offices twice a week. In that instance, the commission placed less weight on the employer's argument that shared physical workspaces benefit collaboration and on-the-job learning — a line of reasoning that proved more persuasive in Polak's case.

Local councils have also attracted attention recently over workplace conditions more broadly. One Tasmanian council made headlines when it announced plans to pay staff full-time wages for a four-day working week, only to reverse course within weeks following a public backlash from local businesses and residents.

What the Decision Signals for Flexible Work Claims

While the Fair Work Commission has in some cases given short shrift to employers resisting flexible work requests, Polak's case illustrates that the bar remains meaningful. Employees seeking to expand existing remote arrangements will likely need to demonstrate more than personal convenience or general fatigue — particularly where employers can point to tangible workforce or cultural benefits of in-person attendance.

The commission's swift ruling — described as near-immediate in its delivery — also suggests the grounds for the request were not considered especially close. For workers in senior roles where mentorship, team cohesion, and knowledge-sharing are part of the job description, employer objections to further remote arrangements may carry considerable weight.