A recent study conducted by Swinburne University of Technology for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) has investigated the current work from home (WFH) practices of employers and employees operating under the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020 (Clerks Award). Commissioned in February 2025, the quantitative research aims to provide evidence to support the development of a specific WFH term for the Clerks Award.
The Commission identified developing a facilitative WFH term in the Clerks Award as a priority area during the Modern Awards Review 2023-2024, given that the Clerks Award is the most commonly used award covering roles where WFH is likely to occur. While not currently a standard feature of modern awards, a temporary schedule (Schedule I) was inserted into the Clerks Award during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 to June 2021 to facilitate WFH, although this schedule has since ceased operation.
The study, titled “Clerks – Working from Home Surveys,” involved two online surveys conducted in April 2025: one with employers using the Clerks Award and another with employees working in roles typically covered by it. The research aimed to gather information on existing WFH policies and practices, reasons for enabling or not enabling WFH, barriers to uptake and access, the impact of the Clerks Award, and general experiences and perceptions of WFH. The scope is limited to those covered by or using the Clerks Award.
Methodology
The research employed online quantitative surveys. Survey 1 targeted n=398 employers of workers typically covered by the Clerks Award, resulting in a final sample of n=384 after data quality checks. Respondents were primarily HR professionals and business leaders with influence over recruitment and HR policies. The sample included medium (47%), large (27%), small (21%), and micro-businesses (remainder) across various industries and locations in Australia. Survey 2 involved n=799 employees in roles typically covered by the Clerks Award. Eligibility screening ensured participants worked in the private sector, performed clerical or administrative work as defined by the Award, and were not covered by an enterprise agreement. The employee sample consisted of 56.6% female and 43.4% male respondents, predominantly aged 25-44 (61.8%) and working full-time (87%).
Draft survey questions were published for feedback, and consultation with interested parties was conducted before finalising the survey design. Data analysis included assessing statistical significance using chi-square tests and ordinal logistic regression where appropriate.
Key Findings: Employer Survey
Employer responses indicated that WFH is widely offered. 55% of employers offered WFH for all or most clerical roles, 25% offered it on a case-by-case basis, and 20% rarely or did not offer it. WFH was also reported as available for part-time (68%) and casual (57%) employees.
When formal WFH requests were received, 77% of employers denied no requests or only a minority. Just over half (51%) indicated that no WFH requests were denied, or that between 1-24% were denied.
Primary reasons for denying WFH requests included concerns about ‘productivity’ (35%), ‘employee ability to work remotely’ (20%), that work tasks ‘cannot be performed at home’ (24%), or that it would be ‘difficult to change other employees’ working arrangements’ (22%). Other reasons included managerial preferences, required in-person client interaction, and difficulty with remote collaboration. Employers also noted potential disadvantages for remote employees like fewer networking or professional development opportunities.
Conversely, the primary reasons for approving WFH requests were attributed to ‘improved productivity/efficiency’ (42%), the organisation offering WFH as a standard practice (40%), or having supportive flexible work policies (37%). Requests were also approved based on employees’ personal circumstances like caring responsibilities, pregnancy, illness, or disability.
WFH was reported as the most common flexible work arrangement offered (available for all or most roles at 55%), followed by flexible start/finish times (available for most or all employees at 50%). About half of employers (52%) said working hours do not change when employees WFH, while 26% said they occasionally or always increase, and 22% said they tend to decrease. Almost half (47.3%) indicated employees could modify their working hours to a degree when WFH. While a minority indicated employees often or always worked outside ordinary Clerks Award hours, the majority likely work ordinary hours.
Regarding managing remote work time, 35.8% of employers required employees to record exact start and finish times. Mechanisms used for management included tracking via emails and shared calendars, policies for absence requests, computerised systems, clock-in/clock-out systems, and monitoring instant messaging engagement.
Qualitative feedback from employers highlighted the need for suitable equipment, clear WFH policies and approval processes, and potentially modifying roles to expand WFH. Some called for stronger protections for WFH within contracts. Challenges mentioned included ensuring engagement and productivity, communication and coordination difficulties, job role limitations requiring physical presence, negative impacts on workplace culture, and concerns about employee misuse. Benefits cited were maintained or improved productivity, enhanced employee satisfaction and retention through better work-life balance and flexibility, autonomy, and building trust-based models. Necessary organisational policies included structured guidelines, IT security and support, and maintaining connection with employees through activities like online check-ins and team-building. No employer respondents explicitly stated that the Clerks Award impedes WFH practices.
Key Findings: Employee Survey
Employee responses revealed varying levels of awareness regarding the Clerks Award. Two-thirds (66.4%) had at least heard about the Award, but only 15.5% knew ‘a lot’ about it, while 33.5% knew ‘nothing’. Just over a third (34.5%) knew the Clerks Award applied to them, 28.9% thought it did, and 36.7% were unsure. Awareness of coverage varied significantly by industry sector, with employees in ‘Professional, scientific and technical services’ (45.9%) more than twice as likely to know they were covered than those in ‘Retail trade’ (21.8%). Differences in awareness were also noted across states and between metropolitan and regional areas.
Regarding WFH access, two-thirds (66.4%) of employees indicated being able to WFH to some extent, with over half (52.3%) currently doing so. Of those who made a WFH request (45.5% of the sample), 64.1% were approved and 29.5% were partially approved, with only 6.1% declined. A notable portion could WFH without requesting permission (11.1%) or had been WFH since COVID-19 without a formal request (12.6%). 17.8% of employees would like to WFH but currently do not.
Analysis by gender revealed significant differences in denial rates. Female employees (4.4%) were 7.3 times more likely overall to have a WFH request declined than male employees (0.6%). Female Managers/Senior administrators were particularly likely to have a request declined (7.1%). However, female employees (13.1%) were more likely than males (8.6%) to WFH without formal approval. Employees aged 25-34 were most likely to have a request approved (35.1%).
Reasons employees cited for WFH being supported by employers included ‘increased productivity/efficiency’ (38.8%), ‘policies which encourage WFH and flexible work’ (33.5%), and ‘improved work engagement’ (29.9%). Parenting and caring responsibilities were the most common employee-related reasons for approval. While based on a small sample of declined requests (n=22), primary reasons for denial included ‘employer preferences for office-based work’ (50%) and job requirements for ‘regular in-person interactions’ (50%).
Regarding the impact on hours, 39.5% of employees said they worked longer hours when WFH, compared to 13% who worked fewer hours. More than a quarter (25.5%) reported working outside the Clerks Award ordinary hours ‘often’ or ‘always’ when WFH. Male employees were significantly more likely to work outside ordinary hours than female employees, particularly after 7 pm on weekdays (30.9% versus 19.9%) and before 7 am on Saturdays (18.0% versus 10.7%). The source notes that attending to personal matters during work time was more common when WFH than when in the workplace.
Employees reported various benefits from WFH. The most common were ‘time saved’ (60.1%), followed by ‘productivity/performance’ gains (49.7%) and ‘financial savings’ (48.2%). ’Household management’ was identified as a benefit by 46.1% of employees, with females significantly more likely to report this benefit than males (51.5% versus 39.4%), highlighting the unequal burden of household work. WFH had a positive impact on work-life balance for 85.7% of employees, on mental health for 75.7%, and physical health for 66.9%.
Despite some employee feedback regarding equity concerns, the quantitative data indicated that neither gender nor weekly earnings impacted a clerical employee’s opportunity to access WFH arrangements.
Qualitative feedback from employees mirrored some employer sentiments, highlighting the importance of flexibility and WLB, potential for increased productivity and focus, and the need for reliable technology and IT support. Employee comments also stressed the crucial role of manager support and trust, noting that micromanagement can hinder WFH success. Positive impacts on health and wellbeing were mentioned. Concerns were raised about role suitability and equitable access across different roles and seniority levels. A minority of comments also reflected negative perceptions or stigma around WFH, including beliefs about decreased productivity or misuse of time.
Final Observations
Based on the survey findings, the Swinburne research team offered several key observations. Firstly, there is a group of employees under the Clerks Award who wish to WFH but do not currently, and many who WFH would like to do so more often. While NES and the Award provide rights to request flexible work based on personal circumstances, employees cited productivity and time/financial savings as primary benefits, while employers cited productivity and work engagement as top reasons for approval.
Secondly, perceptions of performance significantly influence WFH access under the Clerks Award. Employer concerns about productivity were the main reason cited for request denials. Both employers and employees highlighted the need for clear policies, transparent approval processes, and necessary equipment to address these concerns.
Thirdly, the practice of employees working additional hours when WFH under the Clerks Award was noted. A significant portion of employees reported working longer hours or outside ordinary hours when WFH. This suggests that the time saved by not commuting may translate into longer working hours for some.
Finally, some employers stated that certain roles cannot be performed remotely. While this was a reason for denial, the extent to which reasonable adjustments could be made to facilitate WFH in these roles is unclear from the data. Potential adjustments could include scheduling in-person tasks flexibly or modifying role responsibilities.
The findings from this study provide comprehensive insights into current WFH practices under the Clerks Award and will inform the development of relevant terms within the Award.
