A Melbourne-based software engineer who persistently declined to return to his workplace has been unsuccessful in his unfair dismissal case. The Fair Work Commission has determined that his employer acted within legal boundaries when terminating his employment contract.
Dispute Over Hybrid Work Policy Leads to Termination
Richard Johnson was dismissed by PaperCut Software in June 2025 following an extended disagreement concerning the company's hybrid work arrangements. Johnson contended that his employment agreement granted him the exclusive right to work from home, asserting that any directive to attend the office was unlawful.
On July 9, 2025, he submitted an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act, alleging unfair dismissal. PaperCut refuted this claim, arguing there was a legitimate basis for the termination due to Johnson's repeated failure to adhere to instructions regarding a return-to-office transition plan and workplace attendance in accordance with its hybrid policy.
Contract Interpretation at the Heart of the Case
Johnson admitted he did not follow the directions but maintained they were neither lawful nor reasonable, as they contradicted the terms of his contract. He asserted that this non-compliance could not constitute valid grounds for dismissal and sought reinstatement to his position.
PaperCut opposed reinstatement, stating Johnson had received explicit instructions, procedural fairness, and numerous opportunities to meet expectations. Johnson commenced employment with the company in April 2022, signing a contract that obligated him to comply with "reasonable and lawful directions and all policies, rules and regulations" issued by PaperCut.
The agreement permitted him to work from home "in line with relevant PaperCut policy" and noted he "may be required to work at other locations from time to time."
Escalation of the Workplace Conflict
When Johnson joined the business, PaperCut was operating under a hybrid model as workplaces emerged from the pandemic. In August 2022, the company identified what it described as an "incorrect variation" in Johnson's contract, which listed only his home as a work location.
PaperCut attempted to correct the document, but Johnson refused, insisting the clause entitled him to work remotely on a full-time basis. By 2024, Johnson's manager sought to address the issue through the company's "return to work" policy, which aimed to have employees attend the office three days per week by early 2025.
Johnson complied initially, but in December 2024 he was formally notified that his work location would change from his home to the PaperCut office. He rejected this change, arguing it violated the mobility clause in his contract. The dispute intensified, with both parties exchanging legal advice regarding the interpretation of the clause.
Final Warnings and Dismissal Outcome
PaperCut maintained its direction was both "lawful" and "reasonable" and cautioned Johnson that failure to comply could result in disciplinary measures. Johnson acknowledged he did not meet the required office attendance.
The commission heard that in March 2025, Johnson was reminded of the expectation to attend the office three days per week. In May, he received a final warning letter stating: "You are required to attend the office three days per week … please understand that failure to meet this attendance requirement … will result in disciplinary action, which may include termination of your employment."
He attended the office only once after receiving this warning and was dismissed five days later. In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found Johnson's dismissal "was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable."
Commissioner's Ruling on Contract Rights
"Because of these findings, I have determined his application must be dismissed," Commissioner Scott Connolly stated. Connolly noted that Johnson's interpretation of his contract did not grant him an unconditional right to work from home, and that PaperCut had provided clear expectations, transition options, and warnings.
"Plainly, the direction involved no illegality," he said. "I am not persuaded that Mr Johnson's interpretation of the terms of his employment contract provide him any basis to reach a conclusion he had an unconditional right to work from home."
"As I have found that Mr Johnson's dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, accordingly, this application is dismissed." This ruling may influence work-from-home conditions for numerous employees across Australia, setting a precedent for similar disputes in the evolving landscape of hybrid work arrangements.
