“Interruptions to focus”: a valid reason to refuse Work from Home request

The recent Fair Work Commission decision of Rabin Gurung v Knauf Gypsum Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2371, provides useful guidance for employers responding to work from home requests involving caring responsibilities for young children.

In this decision, Commissioner Matheson accepted that the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse a payroll officer’s request for an exemption to return to office requirements, where the request involved primary care of his two young children.

Background

The employee had previously worked from home during the COVID-19 period and later under a hybrid arrangement, working from home two days per week home. In early 2026, the employer required employees to return to the office. Shortly afterwards, the employee sought an exemption so he could continue working from home on Mondays and Fridays.

The request was made on the basis that he was the primary carer for his young children (aged two and four) on those days, as they did not attend daycare and his wife had a pregnancy-related medical condition. The employer refused the request, relying on concerns about performance, productivity and the need for the employee to have “uninterrupted focus” when performing payroll duties.

The Commission accepted that payroll processing is a role requiring high attention to detail, accuracy and minimal errors. It also accepted that children aged two and four require a high level of care and are not self-sufficient for significant periods.

A significant feature of the decision was the consideration of evidence surrounding performance concerns. The employee had been rated as only “partially meets expectations” in his most recent performance review. The employer also submitted that it had observed a decline in attention to detail, timeliness and efficiency while he had been working from home. On the evidence, the Commission found that the employee’s caring responsibilities while working from home had contributed to those performance concerns.

The Commission’s reasoning was evidence-based, with Commissioner Matheson observing:
“I do not consider it feasible for the [payroll officer] to take on a role of primary carer of two children, aged two and four years, at the same time he is carrying out payroll duties in which uninterrupted focus is reasonably required”.

The Commission also accepted there was “a very high risk of interruption” and that this created “a real risk of error and inefficiency when performing an important and complex function”.

Importantly, the performance evidence mattered. Commissioner Matheson found that the employee’s primary carer responsibilities had contributed to the performance concerns, including that he was only “partially meeting” expectations. Although the Commission recognised the importance of stability for the employee’s children, it concluded that the employer had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request.

Lessons for employers

Employers should not view this decision as a precedent that excludes employees from working from home while caring for children.

The practical lesson is that “focus” and “the likelihood of interruptions” can be legitimate business considerations when assessing a work from home request. However, the Commission may only support a refusal where the considerations are connected to the actual duties of the role and supported by evidence, such as past performance, rather than assumptions.

Where an employer can identify role-specific requirements, explain the operational risk, consult with the employee, consider the consequences of refusal and support its position with evidence, then a refusal may be both appropriate and defensible.

Ultimately, this decision reinforces that flexible work requests must still be carefully assessed against the circumstances of the individual.

Thynne + Macartney’s Employment + Safety team has significant experience assisting employers to manage the risks, compliance and disputes that can be involved in managing a workforce. These include comprehensive reviews of existing policy and procedural frameworks, expert representation in disputes and negotiations, and guidance on changes to legislation and regulations.