Work from home or almost not working? When the WFH angle becomes inappropriate behavior

When WFH corner-cutting becomes misconduct Australia – May 2026 The Fair Work Commission (FWC, orCommission) recently confirmed that anemployee who falsified timesheets whileworking from home was not unfairly dismissed Fair Work Commission proceedings In a move that the employer may well have found surprising,given the applicant’s admissions during the disciplinaryprocess, the applicant brought an unfair dismissal claim, •He was reviewing a lengthy hard-copy report thatevidence showed was significantly shorter. •He had little project work despite recording “project work”in his timesheets. •He misunderstood the allegations as relating only to office The facts Commissioner Clarke found there was a valid reasonfor dismissal, describing a “gaping chasm” between theapplicant’s recorded hours and his actual work activity. TheCommission held that dishonesty regarding hours workedfundamentally destroyed the employment relationship and The applicant was employed full-time as a databasemanager and permitted to work from home due to the on-call nature of his role. Concerns arose after he repeatedly breached trust and confidence. The commissioner furtherreferred to the 2023 decision ofBudgen v Verifact Pty Ltd[2023] FWC 2224 where the employee in question had alsocommitted timesheet fraud. “It is elemental that dishonestyin representing that work has been performed, where ithas not been performed, is destructive of the employmentrelationship,” Commissioner Clarke aptly noted. Using monitoring systems including Zscaler, Microsoft Entraand SentinelOne, the employer identified negligible activityduring periods where the applicant claimed full working days.Despite the manager previously approving the timesheets, The applicant was issued allegations concerning falsifiedtimesheets and failure to perform contractual hours. Reportswere produced that suggested that he only logged in for The Commission also found procedural fairness had beenafforded. The applicant was notified of the allegations,participated in meetings, and was encouraged to bring a Commissioner Clarke ultimately observed: In response, he largely admitted the conduct, acknowledginghe had been “barely keeping up with the minimum” and “The Applicant’s initial response to the allegations was tonot contest them. That response was wise. His decision to Following a disciplinary meeting, the employer summarily •Procedural fairness remains essential Key takeaways Even where misconduct appears obvious, employers must While the FWC decision is hardly surprising, there are a fewuseful reminders that can be taken from it: –Notify employees of allegations •Digital monitoring evidence is highly persuasive –Provide an opportunity to respond The case demonstrates the increasing weight placed on: –Conduct a fair investigation –System activity logs –Allow access to a support person if requested –Login records The decision reinforces that procedural fairness remainscritical to defending unfair dismissal claims. –Application usage data –Keystroke monitoring •WFH policies and oversight should be reviewed –Other digital forensic evidence The case also highlights the need for robust managerialoversight in remote work arrangements. While employeesremain responsible for accurately recording time worked, Where monitoring evidence is detailed, objective andinternally consistent, the Commission is willing to rely upon •Employers should maintain clear monitoring and IT With remote and hybrid work now firmly embedded inAustralian workplaces, employers should ensure that theirmonitoring practices, policies and procedures remainlegally compliant and operationally effective, particularly Employers seeking to track and monitor performance, and –Transparent and legally compliant monitoring policies –Acceptable-use IT policies If this case raises concerns or queries for your businessoperations, or you would like more information on thepotential impact of this decision, please contact our Labour & –Clear timesheet and WFH procedures –Proper managerial oversight and accountability Employers should also remain mindful of surveillanceobligations under legislation such as theWorkplaceSurveillance Act 2005(NSW) andWorkplace Privacy Act Nicola MartinPartnerLabour & Employment, SydneyT +61 2 8248 7836 Lucas SpicerLaw GraduateLabour & Employment, PerthT +61 8 9429 7553E lucas.spicer@squirepb.com