In Thanh Long Duong v DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 2799, Mr Duong sought an exemption from DHL’s Electronic Devices Policy, which prohibited employees from possessing or using mobile phones in operational areas. He requested the exemption so that he could remain contactable in the event of a medical emergency involving either of his two young children who suffer from severe asthma and anaphylaxis.

The request was denied, following which Mr Duong commenced proceedings in the FWC under s 65B of the FWA, which permits employees to challenge employer refusals of requests for changes to working arrangements made under the flexible work provisions.

In his ruling, Deputy President Bell (DP Bell) was required to consider whether this request constituted a change to a “working arrangement”.

As DHL’s Electronic Devices Policy was a safety-oriented policy designed to reduce distractions and minimise safety risks within the DHL warehouse facility, DP Bell concluded – albeit “with some hesitation” – that the policy was sufficiently connected to performance and as such, constituted a working arrangement for the purposes of the FWA.

The decision rejects DHL’s argument that working arrangements are confined to traditional matters such as hours, patterns, and locations of work. Instead, it suggests that workplace rules and systems that are sufficiently connected to the performance of work, including safety requirements, may fall within the scope of a flexible working arrangement request under s 65 of the FWA. As a result, employers may face a broader range of flexible work requests seeking exemptions from, or modifications to, workplace policies. However, given DP Bell’s express hesitation in reaching this conclusion and recognition that s 65 of the FWA is ordinarily directed towards more conventional working arrangements, it is likely that the decision will be confined to workplace safety measures or policies that have a similarly close connection to the performance of work.