Knowledge workers – employees whose job involves using information – now expect hybrid working arrangements. It’s become a core part of what attracts and retains talent. A 2022 PwC survey found 74% of Australian employees consider flexibility one of the most important factors when deciding to stay in a job.

Apart from improved work-life balance, from a diversity and inclusion lens, remote work supports caregivers – a responsibility that still tends to fall disproportionately on women – so rigid return-to-office policies risk undermining gender equity and narrowing your talent pipeline.

Remote or hybrid working also expands your talent pool beyond your local area, which is especially valuable for firms in regional or niche markets where it’s hard to find the right fit. Remote work can enable access to national or even global candidates.

The operational needs of the role should guide flexibility. Some functions, such as early-career roles or client-facing teams, may benefit from more in-person time, which is fair if clearly explained and reviewed regularly.

But treating hybrid work as a ‘perk’ is outdated. Flexibility is now a baseline expectation. In cases of underperformance, it’s possible more in-office time might help job efficiency. For instance, through supervision, peer learning, or shadowing, but this should be role dependent and not used punitively.

Start with curiosity. Ask why. Is it about caregiving, commute time, sensory sensitivity or productivity? For example, we know that for some neurodivergent individuals, a quiet, controlled environment is essential for their productivity and wellbeing.

If there’s a genuine barrier, look for a compromise. Flexibility doesn’t always mean full-time remote. Options like staggered hours, designated quiet spaces or part-time attendance can help meet both employee needs and business goals.

Changing long-standing arrangements – especially if remote work was part of the original deal – requires consultation. In Australia, this may amount to a variation of a contract, particularly if agreed in writing. It’s best to reach mutual agreement to avoid disputes.

Generally, yes. Employers can set expectations around in-office attendance, especially where it’s aligned with business needs. But best practice is for organisations to consult with staff and clearly explain the rationale, whether it’s about collaboration, culture, training or client service.

If you’re unsure why the change is being made, it’s worth asking the question. Approaching the conversation with curiosity can help you better understand the business perspective and whether something important is being missed by working remotely.

Absolutely. Explain how you’ve been delivering results remotely and suggest solutions, such as regular office days or team rostering.

Under Australian law, certain employees – including carers, people with disabilities or those aged 55-plus – have a legal right to request flexible working arrangements. Employers must genuinely consider these and can only refuse on reasonable business grounds.

Even if you’re not legally eligible, a constructive, solutions-focused conversation can still lead to a workable outcome. Just be prepared that the business may require some level of office presence and, in fact, recent research by the Productivity Commission in Australia suggests that a 50/50 hybrid model may be the most productive balance for many knowledge-based roles.

Yes, if you have caring responsibilities, you’re covered under the Fair Work Act and can legally request flexible work. However, a long commute on its own isn’t a valid legal ground, although many employers will still take it into account informally, especially if it affects wellbeing or productivity.

Potentially, but it depends on the situation. If in-office attendance is a genuine requirement and you refuse without valid reason or discussion, it could be treated as non-compliance.

That said, most employers will seek to resolve the issue through consultation first. If refusal is linked to protected attributes such as disability or caring responsibilities, dismissal could raise legal risks.