An Australian company has lost return-to-office battle after a tribunal sided with a Sydney mum-of-two who said being forced back into the office would severely disrupt care for her special needs daughter and young family.
Customer support officer Laura Kliffen was told she must commute up to three hours a day to Reapit's Sydney CBD office from Berowra Heights, despite warning it would severely impact her young family, sparking a Fair Work Commission showdown.
The mother said the push to return to the office triggered anxiety and difficult behaviours in her eight-year-old daughter, who has multiple diagnosed conditions, while also disrupting care for her younger child.
However, Reapit refused the request, arguing office attendance was necessary to rebuild 'culture, team cohesion, training and support' following a major rebrand.
The company claimed Mrs Kliffen was resistant to change and unwilling to deal with the inconvenience of commuting, insisting she needed to spend at least one day a week in the office.
But the Commission ruled in her favour, finding the company's arguments did not stack up, particularly given her team of 11 was spread across Australia and overseas.
'Only a small number of (Mrs Kliffen's) team members are actually based in Sydney,' the decisions said.
Six staff had hybrid arrangements, including three based in Manila, two in Brisbane and one in Sydney, while four worked fully remotely, including two from Sydney, one from the Sunshine Coast and one from Melbourne.
Laura Kliffen (pictured) was told she must commute up to three hours a day to Reapit's Sydney CBD office, despite warning it would severely impact her young family
Reapit argued Mrs Kliffen was resistant to change and unwilling to deal with the inconvenience of commuting, insisting she needed to spend at least one day a week in the office
The Commission said Mrs Kliffen's role was largely administrative, providing technical customer support via phone, email and live chat.
It also accepted that her caring responsibilities were significant, highlighting that her child's condition could make routines unpredictable and school drop-offs difficult.
In a compromise ruling, the Commission ordered the company to allow Mrs Kliffen to continue working from home, with just one office day per fortnight and a later start time.
Mrs Kliffen had previously met with a manager to discuss the arrangements, raising the impact the office requirement would have on her child and noting that her younger child's childcare did not open until 7.30am.
She was told she could instead work in the Sydney office two days per week between 10am and 6pm, on days of her choosing.
However, Mrs Kliffen said she could not comply, stating: 'The 2 days in the office would require around 7 hours per week of travel as well as the requirement for various other arrangements and disruption,' she wrote.
'My mental health and the wellbeing of my family and I would be severely impacted by the significant change.
'My daughter does require additional support from time to time and this change has had a significant impact on her levels of anxiety and an escalation of behaviours... this is not something that has happened in the past'.
Reapit managing director Simon Berglund (pictured) oversees the global company's operations in Australia and New ealand
Mrs Kliffen also argued she was a high performer, pointing to strong results despite working part-time. A June 2025 performance review backed this up, with her team leader praising her work.
Despite this, the company claimed her performance had been 'less than adequate' and argued she needed to attend the office at least one day per week, adding that she was not in a position to assess team performance while working remotely.
It also said she was 'oblivious' to how her role had evolved due to her isolation from colleagues, arguing the only way to break this 'vicious cycle' was for her to attend the office.
The company rejected claims that her child's behaviour had worsened due to the return-to-office push, saying she had failed to substantiate this and had relied on reasons that were irrelevant or exaggerated.
However, Mrs Kliffen pointed to Department of Education evidence showing her eldest daughter had repeatedly attempted to leave school grounds, often following her to the car after drop-off.
She said there was not a single week between May and September 2024 in which her child did not attempt to leave at least once.
The company hit back by highlighting that Mrs Kliffen had attended office-based social events, including lawn bowls, a Christmas party and a financial year kick-off.
Commissioner Alana Matheson, however, rejected key aspects of the company's case, including claims it would be impractical to change other employees' working arrangements to continue accommodating Mrs Kliffen's current flexible working arrangement.
The workplace tribunal has once again sided a mum with significant caring responsibilities
'It is unclear from the evidence as to how other employees' working arrangements would need to change to accommodate this arrangement when she has been working remotely since 2017,' she said.
Commissioner Matheson accepted her child's special needs could create challenging behaviours likely to impact Mrs Kliffen's caring responsibilities.
She also said the scale of the commute, which could stretch to three hours a day.
'Public transport offers only a marginal improvement on the driving time at its outer limit,' she said.
The Commission also highlighted inconsistencies in her employment contracts regarding her work location.
'It was entirely reasonable for (Mrs Kliffen) to expect that she would continue to work remotely as she had always done.'