The strict eligibility test for working from home revealed in new laws

Employers trying to stop staff working from home will need to prove it has a “significant” negative impact on business or is incompatible with their role under new laws introduced to parliament.

Businesses will also need to buy equipment for workers’ home offices and could be ordered to pay compensation for unfairly denying them the right to work remotely two days a week.

The legislation establishes the right to work from home for certain employees, in what Premier Jacinta Allan says is a landmark improvement in conditions for working people.

Big business groups have blasted the laws as an unnecessary intervention, given most workplaces already allow working from home where it is practical. Some industrial relations lawyers predict an avalanche of legal disputes over what jobs can reasonably be done remotely.

A full version of the laws, released on Wednesday, spells out a strict test bosses will have to apply in deciding whether they can stop an employee from spending two days a week at home, or a pro rata equivalent for part-timers.

Workers will need to notify their employer in writing that they intend to start working from home. Employers must respond within 21 days and can only refuse or limit flexible work if it is “not reasonable”.

The “not reasonable” decision must be based on specific considerations, including the “inherent requirements” of the role, such as access to equipment or face-to-face interaction with customers.

Employers will also have to pay “reasonable costs” for equipment so workers can do their job from home.

Workers on probation, or on apprenticeship, traineeship or graduate programs are not eligible to work from home under the laws. Casual employees will qualify if they work on a “regular and systematic basis”.

Workers will be able to take their employer to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) for conciliation over work-from-home disputes, and then to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal if not resolved.

Employees already have the right under the federal Fair Work Act to request flexible working arrangements to accommodate specific needs, such as caring for children or having a disability, and employers can only refuse on “reasonable” business grounds.

Natalie Gaspar, an employment partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, said the Victorian laws significantly strengthened workers’ ability to secure work-from-home arrangements by making it a default right and setting a high bar for employers to refuse it.

“The use of that language – significant adverse impact, significant decr