Does your employee have the right to dictate their conditions ?
February 19, 2026
Author name
A recent Fair Work Commission decision illustrates the importance of responding reasonably to the radically altered situation of an employee.
When a staff member is faced with drastic changes in their personal life, it’s important that as an employer you respond with kindness and empathy, but does your employee have the right to dictate their conditions ? In a recent case the Fair Work Commissioner found that the employer had made a clear attempt to negotiate with the employee and that when a suitable arrangement could not be found, the employer had not been unreasonable in its refusal to meet the employees requested hours and leave arrangements.
Phillips v Integrated Medical Solutions Group
(IMS)
– https://bit.ly/2n1KBVh
Ms Phillips, a 24-year-old medical receptionist, alleged she had been unfairly dismissed when her employment ceased due to the inability of her employer to accommodate her request for a change in hours.
Phillips was a full-time employee when her mother became ill and then passed away, leaving Phillips as carer to her 11-year-old sister. Phillips began a period of unpaid leave and claimed that during a meeting with HR she was told that she would “always have a job to return to”, and upon her return to work, she could work from 10:00am-2pm, Monday-Friday, instead of her usual hours of 8-6pm. The head of HR disputed this ‘promise’ claiming she advised Phillips the request would be subject to the approval of the practice owner.
Three months after her mother’s death, Phillips advised the head of HR that she was prepared to return to work under the condition that her hours would be changed (as above), to allow her to drop off and collect her sister from school, and that she would need to take one week off work each school holidays to care for her sister, and three weeks off over summer – stating that she had suggested she could take these holidays as unpaid leave. Countering this, the head of HR told the Commission that Phillips had informed her she would require all of the school holidays off work, and had not offered to take this as unpaid leave. Ms Phillips was advised that the employer could not accommodate her requests but could offer her alternative reasonable hours from 8:30am to 2:30pm, Monday to Friday, and she would be required to apply for annual leave, as per policy, for the school holiday periods. Alternative, Phillips was offered “casual employment on the standard terms.” She was also informed that she could return to work in her usual, full-time role. Phillips still wasn’t happy with these options and kept claiming the verbal ‘promise’ made by the head of HR when her mother first became ill. The head of HR, who was sympathetic to Phillip’s situation, outlined that there clearly was a position for Phillips, in fact she’d been given three different options, they just couldn’t operate around Phillip’s proposed hours. If Phillips was unable to take on one of these options, the head of HR said IMS would assume that Phillips “did not intend to return to work”.
On 2 May, Phillips was given until May 8 to respond if she wished to return to work however the employee refused to compromise. The head of HR prepared a separation certificate at Phillips’ request, recording the reason for the separation as, “employee ceased work voluntarily” however Ms Phillips did not agree and argued that she had been dismissed at the employers initiative and not resigned.
The decision.
Commissioner Hunt noted the many emails sent by Phillips stipulated that she was available to work between 10:00am and 2:00pm only. Hunt found that the practice had, “repeatedly, reasonably and professionally corresponded” with Phillips about the reduced working hours it could accommodate, and, alternatively, “invited Ms Phillips to return as a casual employee.” As a result, the Commissioner found that there was no conduct on IMS’s part that amounted to a dismissal on IMS’s initiative. Phillips, it was found, “had a substantive job to return to and she chose not to accept the respondent’s reasonable and accommodating hours of work given her personal circumstances.”
Ultimately, Commissioner Hunt felt that the practice had not been unreasonable in its refusal to meet Phillips’ requested hours and leave arrangements, and had responded appropriately to Phillips’ requests.
Lessons for employers
Phillips’ case is illustrative of the importance of employers taking reasonable steps to try to accommodate an employee’s changed circumstances, but that they are allowed to factor in the business’s operational needs. Perhaps most importantly, this case demonstrates that the best approach is always to engage in frank and open dialogue with an affected employee, as well as:
• Offering alternative working arrangements that are reasonable for both parties.
• Affording the employee an opportunity to discuss suitable working arrangements.
• Advising the employee of decisions regarding their employment and affording them an opportunity to respond.
The case also emphasis once again the importance of keeping a record of all HR related conversations with staff members either by writing memo’s or in a confirmation email.
If you would like further information in relation to how the above matters may affect your business, please contact us on (08) 9321 5451
The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Bailiwick Legal has been honoured to support Forever Wild over the past few years as they delivered one of the most significant conservation land acquisition programs undertaken in Western Australia. Our team assisted Forever Wild with the strategic purchase of four pastoral stations, Narndee , Boodanoo , Meeline and Challa , transactions that now connect three State Reserves and protect more than 12,000 square kilometres of land. To put that scale into perspective, the combined area is approximately five times the size of the ACT and nearly one-fifth the size of Tasmania . Navigating complexity at scale These were not straightforward property transactions. Each acquisition involved: Multiple pastoral leases Layered regulatory and approval pathways Significant operational and on-ground assets Numerous stakeholders across government, industry and land management Our role was to guide Forever Wild through this complexity with clarity, precision and confidence, ensuring each transaction progressed efficiently while managing risk and safeguarding long-term objectives. “ Forever Wild is creating a world-leading model for nature funding that demonstrates we can manage viable, working pastoral stations whilst also restoring and protecting local ecological flora and fauna, and engaging and supporting Indigenous people and local communities. Complex & challenging, but this initiative could literally change the world .” Jessica Brunner - Director, Bailiwick Legal A growing and evolving legal landscape Large-scale conservation acquisitions sit within an emerging and increasingly complex legal field , intersecting land tenure, pastoral regulation, environmental frameworks and commercial considerations. These matters demand a deep understanding of both the legal mechanics and the practical realities of operating in regional and remote Australia. Our team’s experience in agribusiness, pastoral land transactions and regulatory approvals allowed us to support Forever Wild at every stage, from strategic structuring through to completion. Proud to support leadership in nature finance Forever Wild is widely recognised as an industry leader and a steadfast advocate for nature finance initiatives , helping pave the way for greater accessibility and innovation in conservation funding and land stewardship. We are proud to have contributed our relationships, expertise and practical legal insight to help Forever Wild achieve its vision, and to have played a role, however small, in shaping a groundbreaking future for conservation in Australia. At Bailiwick Legal, we value the opportunity to work alongside organisations that are thinking long-term, acting boldly, and creating outcomes that extend well beyond the transaction itself. For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Bailiwick Legal Advises on Landmark Acquisition of Rawlinna Station by Consolidated Pastoral Company
Bailiwick Legal is proud to have acted for Consolidated Pastoral Company (CPC) in its successful acquisition of Rawlinna Station , Australia’s largest sheep station, located on the remote Nullarbor Plain in Western Australia. Spanning over 1 million hectares and running approximately 30,000 sheep , Rawlinna is an iconic pastoral asset with a rich legacy, having been held by the MacLachlan family’s Jumbuck Pastoral Company since its establishment in 1962. The sale marks the first change of ownership in over six decades and was finalised following formal approval from the Western Australian Government for the transfer of the pastoral leases. This transaction involved navigating: The transfer of three separate pastoral leases Coordination across multiple vendor entities Consideration of livestock and operating assets Fulfilment of regulatory and compliance requirements, including WA lease approval processes Bailiwick Legal is a boutique agricultural and regional law firm , proudly based in Perth and Bridgetown, Western Australia. Our role in this acquisition demonstrates that deep sector knowledge, local insight, and personalised legal support are crucial for agribusiness clients managing complex, high-value transactions. Our team, led by our regionally-based solicitor, Matilda Lloyd, provided end-to-end legal and strategic support, including: Due diligence on land tenure and operating assets Contract negotiation and preparation Advice on regulatory approvals and compliance Strategic coordination with CPC’s internal and external stakeholders to ensure a smooth and timely settlement We are honoured to have supported CPC in this milestone acquisition and look forward to watching Rawlinna’s next chapter unfolds. At Bailiwick Legal, we believe that regional expertise, deep industry knowledge, and relationship-based service remain essential to agribusiness success, no matter the scale. Congratulations to all parties involved, including the MacLachlan family, whose stewardship of Rawlinna leaves a lasting legacy in Australian agriculture. – The Bailiwick Legal Team Working alongside agribusinesses to grow, transition, and thrive . For assistance with all of your agribusiness needs, contact Bailiwick Legal on 08 9321 5451 or email office@bailiwicklegal.com.au By Matilda Lloyd (Associate) For further information about our legal services, please visit our website: https://www.bailiwicklegal.com.au The above information is a summary and overview of the matters discussed. This publication does not constitute legal advice and you should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.
Our June 2024 newsletter is now available. Have a read to find out what we have been up to in the first half of the year!
