Proposed Victorian ‘Right to Work from Home’ – What Employers Need to Know

The Victorian Government has introduced a Bill to give employees a legal right to work from home up to two days per week. It’s only a proposal at this stage – not law yet – but if it passes, it will bring new obligations for Victorian businesses. Large employers (15+ staff) would need to comply from 1 September 2026, and small employers (fewer than 15 staff) from 1 July 2027. This marks a significant change beyond the current national “right to request” flexible work arrangements.

It is important to note this legislation is currently proposed, it has not been passed or enacted. This article is to provide employer’s insight on what this could mean for their business.

The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 was introduced into Victoria’s Parliament on 16 June 2026. If enacted, it would amend Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to allow “eligible employees” to work from home up to 40% of their weekly hours (e.g. 2 days out of 5), whenever it’s reasonably possible for them to do their job remotely. This is framed as a direct right to work from home, not merely a request.

The new entitlement would cover most Victorian full-time, part-time, and regular casual employees in roles that can be performed from home. Some exceptions are included – for example, new or training employees (like those on probation, apprenticeships, internships), gig economy workers, and irregular casuals would not automatically have this right. Additionally, employees who already qualify for a flexible work request under the national Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (e.g. new parents, carers, people 55+ or with a disability) would continue using the federal system for those circumstances and not use the new state pathway.

To use the right, an eligible employee must give their employer written notice (a “work from home notice”) detailing the days/times they plan to work from home (and location, if not their home). If an employee’s schedule varies, they can state the portion of time they intend to work remotely. The employer then has 21 days to respond in writing.

  • If the employer thinks it’s not reasonable as requested: The employer must explain why, and either offer an alternative arrangement (e.g. one day a week instead of two, or different days), or refuse outright with reasons.

  • If the request is acceptable: The employer confirms the employee can work from home on the specified days/times (up to the maximum entitlement).

The Bill tightly defines when saying “no” (or offering less WFH than requested) is allowed. Refusals must be based on specific, justified grounds – for example, if the role truly can’t be done remotely (due to essential on-site duties or equipment), if productivity or customer service would suffer significantly, if there are major supervision, safety or data security concerns, or if accommodating the request would incur unreasonable cost or require impractical changes. In short, the employer must show it’s genuinely not feasible for that employee to work from home consistent with the request.

If an employee’s work-from-home request meets the criteria and must be allowed, the employer would be responsible for paying any “reasonable costs” to enable it. This could include providing essential equipment and secure IT system access (like laptops, software, or other tools needed for the employees’ home setup). For many employers, especially those without existing remote work setups, this may require an investment in technology and updated policies (e.g. around cybersecurity and safe home work environments).

Currently, under national workplace laws, only certain employees have a right to request flexible working arrangements, and employers can refuse on broad “reasonable business grounds.” The proposed Victorian scheme is different: it extends to far more employees and treats working from home up to 2 days a week as a default right if a job can be done remotely. The grounds to refuse are narrower and defined in legislation. It also introduces the idea that employers have to financially support remote work (whereas the federal system doesn’t specify that). In essence, this state law would set a higher bar for refusing a work-from-home arrangement and create a more formal process for everyone, not just those with carer responsibilities.

While nothing has changed yet, it’s wise for business owners to start planning in case this law passes. Steps for employers include:

  • Prepare for tech and safety needs: Ensure you have appropriate technology and support for remote workers (e.g. equipment, secure VPN access).

  • Stay informed: Follow updates on the Bill’s progress so you know if/when it becomes law, and whether there are any changes to the proposal.

  • Identify roles suitable for WFH: Review your business operations and pinpoint which roles (or tasks) can be done from home and which truly require on-site presence. Be ready to explain why certain jobs can’t be done remotely if needed.

  • Update policies: Consider drafting a work-from-home policy or updating your existing flexible work policy. Clarify the process for employees to notify you of WFH requests and how you’ll assess and respond.

  • Consider OHS requirements: Employees working from home are still entitled to a safe workplace, this includes an ergonomic set up and the space clear from obstructions or hazards. Employer’s should consider WFH safety checklists.

By getting ahead of these issues now, your business will be better positioned if (or when) Victoria’s work-from-home right becomes a legal reality. Above all, remember that this is only a proposal – continue your usual practices for now, and be ready to adapt if the law comes into effect.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain professional advice tailored to your circumstances.


More blog articles.

Casual in Name Only? The Fair Work Commission Looks Beyond the Contract

A common misconception among employers is that a casual employee’s classification as a casual depends heavily on the terms of the employment contract. However, a recent Fair Work Commission decision serves as a reminder that, in some circumstances, the reality of the working relationship can be just as important as the label attached to it.

Read More »

When Does a Work Christmas Party Actually End?

Every year, employers grapple with the same question after the holiday season: once the official Christmas party is over, do the normal workplace rules still apply?
A recent Fair Work Commission decision suggests the answer may be “yes”, even when employees have left the venue, the event has ended, and the employer is no longer involved.

Read More »

When Good Intentions Lead to Serious Misconduct

A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision serves as a timely reminder that an employee’s intentions are only one part of the equation. In some circumstances, a serious lapse in judgement can justify dismissal, even where there was no malicious intent.

Read More »

The Casual Conversion Case That Put AI in the Spotlight

Artificial intelligence is changing the way workplaces operate. From drafting policies and position descriptions through to assisting with investigations, performance management and legal research, employers are increasingly turning to AI-powered tools to improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden.

Read More »

Australian Non-Compete Reforms: What Employers Need to Know

The Australian Government has proposed some of the most significant changes to employment restraints in decades. If passed in their current form, the reforms would dramatically limit an employer’s ability to prevent former employees from joining competitors or starting competing businesses.

Read More »

High Income Doesn’t Always Mean Award-Free

One of the more common misconceptions we encounter when reviewing employment arrangements is the assumption that a senior employee earning a substantial salary cannot be covered by a modern award. In practice, it is rarely that simple.

Read More »