The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v Chief Commissioner of Police T/A Victoria Police - [2025] FWC 2171

[2025] FWC 2171

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739—Dispute resolution

The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch)
v

Chief Commissioner of Police T/A Victoria Police

(C2024/6422)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE

MELBOURNE, 25 JULY 2025

Application to deal with a dispute arising under an enterprise agreement.

Leading Senior Constable Melissa Farley is employed by Victoria Police as a prosecutor. She has held this role, attached to the Melbourne Prosecutions Unit, for more than eight years although she has been employed by Victoria Police since 2006.

In October 2022, LSC Farley commenced parental leave following the birth of her first child. Following her return to work, LSC Farley requested a flexible working arrangement to work three shifts per week, Monday to Wednesday, consisting of 9-hour shifts with Mondays to be worked from home. Victoria Police approved LSC Farley’s request to work three 9-hour shifts per week as requested. However, Victoria Police refused LSC Farley’s request to work from home on Mondays. LSC Farley commenced working in according with this flexible working arrangement on 17 June 2024.

Five weeks later, LSC Farley submitted a request to vary her flexible working arrangement to work from home each Monday (Variation Request). On 2 August 2024, Victoria Police refused the Variation Request.

The dispute before the Commission arises under the Victoria Police (Police Officers, Protective Services Officers, Police Reservists and Police Recruits) Enterprise Agreement 2019 (Agreement) and relates to the decision by Victoria Police to refuse the Variation Request. The application has been made on LSC Farley’s behalf by The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch).

Context

The dispute before the Commission has a narrow focus. It came before the Commission as a dispute concerning compliance with clause 14 of the Agreement titled Right to request flexible working arrangements. It was referred to the Commission pursuant to clause 10 Dispute Resolution of the Agreement.

The dispute notification seeks a determination that Victoria Police did not provide reasonable business grounds to reject LSC Farley’s request to work from home on Mondays; and consequently, that LSC Farley be granted a flexible working arrangement to work from home on Monday.[1]

The pre-requisites to the Commission’s involvement having been followed, I am satisfied that the Commission is empowered to resolve the dispute in accordance with clause 10 of the Agreement and s 739 of the Act. The parties agreed that the Commission should determine the following question in resolution of the application:

Were the grounds relied upon by the Employer to refuse the flexible working arrangement application of Leading Senior Constable Melissa Farley on 2 August 2024 ‘reasonable business grounds’ pursuant to clause 14.9 of the Victoria Police Enterprise Agreement 2019?

Clause 14 of the Agreement provides as follows:

14. Right to Request Flexible Working Arrangements

14.1     All positions in Victoria Police may be worked flexibly.
14.2     An employee who:
(a)    is the parent of, or has responsibility for, the care of a child who is of school age or under; or
(b) is a carer…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch)...

Details

AGLC: The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v Chief Commissioner of Police T/A Victoria Police [2025] FWC 2171
Case: [2025] FWC 2171
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v Chief Commissioner of Police T/A Victoria Police was brought before the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch), represented Leading Senior Constable Melissa Farley, who sought to have a flexible working arrangement to work from home on Mondays. The respondent, the Chief Commissioner of Police T/A Victoria Police, refused the request. The question before the Commission was whether the grounds relied upon by the Employer to refuse the flexible working arrangement were reasonable business grounds. Clause 14.9 of the Victoria Police Enterprise Agreement 2019 allows an employer to refuse a request for flexible working arrangements only on reasonable business grounds. The Commission considered that Victoria Police had reasonable business grounds to refuse the request, given the resourcing constraints faced by the Melbourne Prosecutions Unit and the requirement for prosecutors to be physically present in court to perform their duties. The Commission concluded that the business grounds relied upon by Victoria Police were reasonable business grounds within the meaning of clause 14.9 of the Agreement. The dispute was therefore determined in favour of Victoria Police.

Orders