Victoria is set to become the first Australian state to introduce a statutory right to work from home.
If passed in its current form, the legislation will give eligible employees whose roles can reasonably be performed remotely a legal entitlement to work from home for up to two days per week. The changes are expected to commence on 1 September 2026, with a delayed start date for businesses with fewer than 15 employees.
For many employers, the immediate reaction is that little will change because hybrid work is already relatively common. However, the proposed laws may require businesses to rethink how they manage attendance expectations, performance concerns, team collaboration and workplace policies.
The impact may be even greater for employers operating across multiple states.
Work From Home Is Moving From A Workplace Policy To A Legal Right
Most employers are familiar with the current position under the Fair Work Act. Certain employees can request flexible working arrangements, and employers can generally refuse those requests on reasonable business grounds. The framework generally starts with a request from the employee.
Victoria’s proposed model shifts the starting point. Rather than employees asking for flexibility, the legislation creates a presumption that employees whose roles can reasonably be performed remotely will be entitled to work from home for up to two days each week. The right is proposed to sit within Victoria’s Equal Opportunity framework rather than traditional industrial relations legislation.
Many employers already allow hybrid work arrangements. The challenge is not whether employees can work remotely. The challenge is whether employers will still be able to require office attendance where they believe it is necessary for productivity, supervision, training, culture or client service.
One misconception is that the legislation will create an automatic right for every employee to work remotely. That is unlikely to be the case.
The proposed framework still recognises that some roles cannot reasonably be performed from home and that employers may have legitimate operational reasons for requiring attendance. However, employers may need stronger evidence and clearer reasoning than they have relied upon in the past when refusing WFH requests.
National Employers Could End Up Managing Two Different Systems
The most significant issue may not be the Victorian workforce itself. It may be the administrative burden created for businesses operating nationally.
A business with employees in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth could find itself dealing with different legal obligations depending on where an employee is based.
At present, flexible work requests are largely governed by federal workplace laws. Victoria’s proposed reforms introduce an additional state-based layer that employers will need to navigate.
This could create several challenges for employers, including:
1. Different Attendance Requirements Across States
Employers may need separate policies for Victorian employees and employees located elsewhere.
A national return-to-office strategy may become more difficult to implement if Victorian workers have statutory rights that do not apply in other jurisdictions.
2. Increased Dispute Risk
Where an employer refuses a work from home arrangement, employees may have access to dispute resolution pathways through Victorian bodies and tribunals. This creates another potential avenue for workplace disputes.
3. Greater Pressure On Documentation
Many businesses currently make attendance decisions based on management discretion.
Under the proposed laws, employers may need to demonstrate why a role cannot reasonably be performed remotely or why a particular arrangement would create operational difficulties. That means documenting decision-making processes, business impacts and performance concerns more carefully.
4. Challenges For Team-Based Work
Employers often tell us that the real issue is not whether an individual employee can perform tasks from home.
The challenge is maintaining collaboration, mentoring, supervision and workplace culture across an entire team. These factors can be difficult to measure, but they often have a significant impact on productivity and employee development.
Businesses may therefore need to move beyond general statements about culture and identify specific operational reasons for office attendance.
Employers Should Review Their Work From Home Framework Now
Although the legislation is not yet fully implemented, employers should start preparing well before the commencement date. This includes:
Step 1: Review Existing Policies
Many work from home policies were created during or shortly after COVID-19 and may no longer reflect current workplace expectations or legal requirements. Employers should review their policies to ensure they clearly address eligibility requirements, attendance expectations, performance standards, communication protocols, equipment and technology obligations, and the circumstances in which a request to work remotely may be refused.
Step 2: Identify Roles That Can And Cannot Be Performed Remotely
One of the first exercises many organisations should undertake is role mapping. Rather than applying a blanket approach across the workforce, employers should assess which roles can be performed remotely with minimal operational impact, which roles require regular office attendance, and which roles may require a hybrid arrangement. The stronger the operational rationale for workplace attendance, the easier it will be to justify those requirements if challenged.
Step 3: Train Managers
Work from home disputes often arise because managers apply different standards across teams. Consistency will become increasingly important if the proposed reforms proceed. Managers should understand when remote work arrangements should be approved, when operational concerns may justify refusal, how decisions should be documented, and how to communicate those decisions appropriately to employees.
Step 4: Consider National Consistency
For employers operating across Australia, this may be the right time to review whether a single national framework remains practical. Some businesses may conclude that maintaining different work from home arrangements across states creates unnecessary complexity, while others may choose to adopt Victorian standards nationally to simplify compliance and workforce management. There is no single correct approach, but employers should make a deliberate decision rather than allowing inconsistent practices to develop over time.
Why This Matters Beyond Victoria
Many employment law reforms start in one jurisdiction before influencing broader workplace expectations. Whether or not other states introduce similar legislation, employee expectations are likely to evolve.
Workers increasingly view flexibility as a standard workplace benefit rather than a discretionary privilege. For employers, the real question is not whether remote work exists. It is how to manage flexibility in a way that protects productivity, supports employees and reduces legal risk.
Businesses that prepare early are likely to be in a stronger position than those waiting until a dispute arises.
In our experience, the biggest concern for many employers is not whether employees can work from home. It is how to apply workplace attendance requirements consistently across the business. We are already seeing national employers review their hybrid work policies and ask whether Victorian employees may need to be treated differently from employees in other states if the proposed reforms proceed.
Prosper Law advises employers on workplace policies, flexible work arrangements and employment law compliance. Contact our employment lawyers to review your current arrangements and identify any changes that may be needed before the new laws commence.
Frequently Asked Questions
When do Victoria's new work from home laws start?
The proposed laws are expected to commence on 1 September 2026, with workplaces employing fewer than 15 employees receiving additional time before the changes apply.
Will every Victorian employee have a right to work from home?
No. The proposed entitlement is expected to apply only where a role can reasonably be performed remotely. Some positions will still require workplace attendance.
Can employers refuse a work from home arrangement?
Potentially yes. The proposed framework recognises that employers may have legitimate operational reasons for requiring attendance. However, employers may need to justify those decisions more carefully than under existing workplace arrangements.
How will this affect national employers?
National employers may need to manage different obligations for Victorian employees compared with workers located in other states, particularly where attendance requirements and hybrid work policies differ.
Victoria’s proposed work from home laws could create new challenges for national employers. Prosper Law can help you review your hybrid work framework, update policies and ensure your approach remains compliant and practical across your workforce.
What should employers do now?
Review work from home policies, assess which roles can reasonably be performed remotely, train managers on decision-making processes and consider whether existing national workplace frameworks remain appropriate in light of the proposed Victorian reforms.
Contact an Australian Business Lawyer Today.
Contact us for a free consultation
