In Johnson v PaperCut Software Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission found that an employer’s direction requiring office attendance three days per week under a hybrid work policy was lawful and reasonable, and that an employee’s ongoing refusal to comply provided a valid reason for dismissal.

Background and employment terms

Mr Johnson was employed as a software engineer under a contract requiring him to comply with lawful and reasonable directions, as well as company policies. While the contract permitted him to work from his personal residence, this was expressly framed as being “in line with relevant PaperCut policy”, rather than as a guaranteed or fixed work location.

During recruitment, Mr Johnson was reportedly told the role would be fully remote, with only occasional office attendance for workshops or events. An accompanying letter also referred to his home as his work location. These representations later became a key point of dispute.

Introduction of the hybrid policy

PaperCut later introduced a hybrid work policy requiring employees to attend the office three days per week. The policy was developed following consultation with staff and implemented through a staged transition period.

Mr Johnson took the view that he was a “remote” employee with an ongoing right to work from home and resisted the requirement to attend the office regularly. Although his manager initially treated him as exempt from the policy, the company later required him to comply with the three-day office attendance requirement.

Dismissal and arguments

After continued non-compliance, PaperCut issued a final warning in May 2025, clearly stating that failure to attend the office three days per week over the following three weeks could result in termination.

Mr Johnson did not comply, and his employment was terminated on 19 June 2025.

In his unfair dismissal claim, Mr Johnson argued that the return-to-office direction was unlawful and unreasonable, disproportionate given his role could be performed remotely, and inconsistent with what he said were contractual and recruitment-based assurances of remote work.

PaperCut contended that the hybrid policy was based on legitimate business needs, implemented fairly, and that Mr Johnson’s refusal to follow a lawful and reasonable direction constituted a valid reason for dismissal.

Findings

The Commission rejected the claim, finding that:

• The contract did not confer an unconditional right to work from home; working from home was something the employer permitted, subject to policy.
• The hybrid policy was lawful and reasonable, supported by legitimate business considerations and a consultative, staged rollout.
• The direction to attend the office three days per week was therefore a lawful and reasonable instruction that Mr Johnson was contractually obliged to follow.
• His continued refusal, despite a final warning and opportunity to comply, amounted to a valid reason for dismissal related to conduct.

The Commission also found the dismissal was procedurally fair and not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, notwithstanding Mr Johnson’s reliance on earlier representations about remote work.

Outcome and implications

The unfair dismissal application was dismissed, with no order for reinstatement or compensation.

The decision reinforces that, absent a clear contractual guarantee, employees do not have an absolute right to work from home. Where a hybrid or return-to-office policy is implemented on reasonable business grounds, persistent refusal to comply after warning can lawfully justify dismissal.