Spending more than two hours travelling to his city job and returning home to Campbelltown in Sydney's south-western suburbs left Casey Munro frustrated.

So when the prospect of a new job came up that meant he could work from home, it was a no-brainer.

"It's a bit less money, but I'm not having to pay for a commute," Mr Munro said.

"I'm no longer having to get up early in the morning and rush into the city to get anywhere, I can exercise and it's easier to get a full eight hours sleep."

The 27-year-old, who is a United Services Union member, now works in customer service from his spare bedroom, helping provide logistical assistance for people who break down in remote places.

"[Customers] let everything out at you — you just have to cop it," he said.

"Having my cat here in front of me, is always good to de-stress after a particularly aggressive customer."

Mr Munro works under the Clerks Award and his company has agreed through an Enterprise Agreement for its employees to work flexibly from home.

Now the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is reviewing whether this award covering administrative workers should include the right to work from home.

The FWC hearings start today in a test case that could extend the right more broadly, with potential implications for more than a million clerical and administrative workers across Australia.

ABS data shows around 37 per cent of Australians work from home regularly, which is up 5 per cent from pre-pandemic levels.

The figures also show there are about 1.8 million clerical and administrative employees across Australia, of which around 91,000 are covered by the Clerks award. 

Giving employees more say

Dr Gabrielle Golding, senior law lecturer at the University of Adelaide, said the review of this award was an important test case.

"It could provide a significant shift in the dial of giving employees more ownership and more say of how, when and where work is performed," she said.

"This will set the tone of what is to come for those employees covered in the other 25 awards that have a clerical classification."

Currently employers only have to agree to reasonable requests to work from home from staff who have specific needs like caring responsibilities, having school-aged children, workers with disabilities and those aged over 55.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary, Sally McManus, said most workplaces have sorted out flexible arrangements, but said there should be protections when employers weren't reasonable.

"An example of being unreasonable would be an employer only allowing some people to work from home or a large employer simply refusing to consider it is possible."

Jessica Tinsley, director of workplace relations with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), said extending work-from-home rights would be an overreach.

"What they are proposing to do is extend that protection to employees who don't necessarily need to work from home, but want to for a lifestyle choice."

While ACCI doesn't support changes to the right to work from home, it is arguing for changes to the Clerks Award to better reflect flexible working arrangements.

It wants a reduction in the existing minimum three-hour shift and also the option to extend working hours beyond 7am to 7pm.

Will new laws send employers offshore?

Charles Cameron, CEO of recruitment employer association, RCSA, said he was concerned about "rights hoarding" with the prospect of further enshrined worker rights, on top of other more recent entitlements like the right to disconnect.

"I get really worried where we just add layer upon layer of new rights," he said.

"It is almost like a lasagne where there is another layer of rights put in.

"The cumulative effect is that it becomes less attractive for employment within Australia and we do start looking, especially in knowledge jobs, looking offshore (for workers)."

Emily Jaksch, who leads human resources company, HR Gurus, said many of her clients were already outsourcing administrative roles, particularly to Asia.

"The hard reality is why would we pay someone $60,000 in Australia, when we can hire someone for much less in the Philippines and not pay for all these additional things [worker entitlements]?

"Embedding work from home as an entitlement into an award is huge."

ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, said she's heard the off-shore argument before.

"This was used in the 1990s and is very much a scare tactic with workers — if you ask too much we will offshore your jobs.

"In the end, employers will always make those decisions, regardless."

Submissions are expected to be filed in March 2025, with further hearings throughout the year.