The recent Fair Work Commission decision of Johnson v PaperCut Software Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 178 has reinforced an employer’s ability to direct employees back into the workplace, even where hybrid arrangements have been long‑standing.
In this case, a software engineer employee (Mr Johnson) alleged unfair dismissal after refusing to comply with PaperCut Software Pty Ltds (PaperCut) hybrid workplace policy, which, following introduction in August 2023, required three days in the office each week by January 2025. Mr Johnson argued the direction wasn’t lawful or reasonable, claiming his contract allowed him to work from home and that attendance requirements were inconsistent with what he was told during recruitment.
PaperCut denied the allegations, maintaining there was a valid reason for dismissal: repeated non‑compliance with clear, gradual return‑to‑office requirements. Over several months, the business gave warnings, explanations, opportunities to adjust, and even encouraged the employee to seek legal advice. PaperCut consistently maintained that, while the contract permitted him to work from home, it did not grant an unconditional right to do so. His ability to work from home was always subject to lawful and reasonable directions, as well as any changes to PaperCut’s policies.
The Commission agreed with PaperCut. It found the dismissal not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, confirming:
- The contract did not give an unconditional right to work from home. Mr Johnson was only “permitted” to work from home. This is different from an unconditional right to work from home;
- PaperCut was entitled to amend its policies from time to time, which it did, and employees were required to comply (provided they were lawful and reasonable). The policy change was permitted and therefore PaperCut was entitled to require office attendance;
- The direction involved “no illegality” and was reasonable given the long transition period and repeated communication with employees;
- Interestingly, the fact that Mr Johnson had previously worked mostly from home, or that other employees still did work from home, was found to be immaterial to this case and did not make the direction unlawful or unreasonable.
What This Means for Employers
This decision is a timely reminder that:
- Work from home and hybrid arrangements are not permanent rights unless expressly written into a contract. The terms of the contract (and or relevant policies) are pivotal to this entitlement.
- Clear policies matter. Keeping them updated gives employers flexibility.
- Consultation and communication counts: gradual transitions, documented warnings, and consistent messaging strongly support the lawfulness of a direction.
As more businesses refine long‑term hybrid models, this case highlights the importance of well‑drafted contracts, up‑to‑date workplace policies, and proactive management of return‑to‑office expectations.
If you would like further information regarding the above or would like to discuss anything specific to your workplace please contact our Employment Team on (02) 4927 2900.