Flexibility has become increasingly important for employers and employees across Australia. It is a work agreement to change the standard working arrangement to better accommodate an employee’s commitments out of the workplace environment. The arrangements generally cover changes to work hours, and has over the years improved how employees manage competing life priorities.
The National Employment Standards (NES) are minimum employment standards contained in the Fair Work Act 2009 that must be provided to employees covered by the national workplace relations system. Requests for flexible working arrangements are part of those minimum entitlements that employers need to provide, for certain eligible employees.
Employers and employees can negotiate individual flexibility arrangements in an award or an enterprise agreement or other registered agreement to change hours of work, patterns of work and locations of work – to work from home.
The Fair Work Act 2009 provides a few instances where workers have the right to make a request in writing for flexible working arrangements, that an employer is obligated to consider if employee:
- is a parent, or have responsibility for the care, of a child who is school aged or younger
- is a carer (under the Carer Recognition Act 2010)
- has a disability
- is 55 years of age or older
- is experiencing family or domestic violence, or
- provides care or support to a member of their household or immediate family who requires care and support because of family or domestic violence.
Employer’s must provide their written response within 21 days where the request is approved and if refused explain the written response must outline the reason based on reasonable business grounds that include:
- the requested arrangements are too costly
- other employees’ working arrangements can’t be changed to accommodate the request
- it’s impractical to change other employees’ working arrangements or hire new employees to accommodate the request
- the request would result in a significant loss of productivity or have a significant negative impact on customer service.
Then in 2020 many employees’ work arrangements changed because of the impacts of COVID, and included more people working from home as well as changes to rosters, hours of work or duties. COVID forced employers to adopt a ‘control change’ to how employees worked. Why? Employers, and better still Managers always get stuck when it comes to control. Control is a strong coping technique for uncertainty. Uncertainty, in turn, is one of the most maddening and uncomfortable emotions for people to manage (Kohler, 2019).
In a study by the Harvard Business Review found that about 40% of the 215 supervisors and managers in our study expressed low self-confidence in their ability to manage workers remotely. Twenty-three percent of managers disagreed with the statement “I am confident I can manage a team of remote workers” and another 16% were unsure about this ability. Similar numbers reported lacking the confidence to influence remote workers to do their job well, and coordinate a team of remote workers effectively. These findings suggest a lack of self-efficacy for managing remote working, with self-efficacy referring to the belief in one’s own ability to master challenging situations. A similar proportion of managers had negative views about remote workers’ performance. Thirty-eight percent of managers agreed that remote workers usually perform worse than those who work in an office (Parker, et.al, 2020). COVID forced employers and managers to deal with their self-confidence, beliefs and distrust in remote workers.
Trust is an important aspect of a flexible working arrangement. With many employees working remotely during COVID, workplaces that traditionally emphasised and valued presenteeism as a measure of employee engagement have had to shift their focus to being more trust-based and outcome-oriented. International studies have shown that trust-based work practices have been associated with greater productivity and worker efficiency (WGEA).
While many employers have found that working from home has had negligible, if any, adverse effects on productivity, others believe it has indeed had a negative impact, and want to get things back to the way they were pre-pandemic, in order to start rectifying the economic damage done.
The Australian Productivity Commission also found that employees wanted to work from home and enjoyed benefits such as reduced commute time and travel costs. Employers were more likely to cite their concerns about the possible negative impacts on culture and teamwork. However, the Australian Productivity Commission reported that a sudden and widespread switch to remote working had not materially impacted on employee’s productivity and that productivity could even increase if widespread remote working continued.
A WGEA study from 2020 found that 92% of employees wanted to access some form of flexible work arrangement after the pandemic ended. Now we are seeing a push for employees to return to the workplace and as they transition back to the workplace, they may seek continued or additional flexibility in their working arrangements, to help them reduce commute time, manage health risks and meet family or other commitments. Best practice employers should give their employees flexibility where possible to help them balance their work and personal lives. (FWO).
As increased attendance in the office becomes expected, the narrative put out to employees as to why this is necessary talks about team building, connection and collaboration. Yes, those are important considerations. But another factor is much more likely to be driving this attendance edict, even if managers and employers are unaware of its influence. That factor is control creeping back. Employers must recognise that everyone will respond to the process of returning to the workplace differently. For some it will be difficult and stressful. For others it will be a welcome return to some kind of routine and normalcy.
But what does the law say about returning to the workplace?
The Fair Work Ombudsman (Oct, 2022) say’s, Employers can require (or direct) their employees to work their normal hours as long as the requirement is lawful and reasonable. This includes returning to the workplace. Employers should continue exploring alternative working arrangements in their workplace, particularly while social distancing rules or COVID-19 vaccination requirements apply.
List of references
Australian Productivity Commission, (October, 11, 2022). Working from home
Fair Work Act
Fair Work Ombudsman, (2022) www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/flexibility-in-the-workplace/flexible-working-arrangements
Harvard Business Review (July, 30, 2022) Parker, S.K., Knight, C., Keller. A, Remote Managers having trust issues www.hbr.org/2020/07/remote-managers-are-having-trust-issues
Workplace Gender Equity Agency, (2022), Australian Government www.wgea.gov.au/publications/flexible-work-post-covid
