Manager at prestigious college alleges she was frozen out for working from home

A manager at a prestigious Melbourne college who says she was frozen out at work and demoted over her working-from-home arrangement has taken her employer to the Federal Court.

Kelly Reed, a commercial manager at University College – a student boarding facility attached to the University of Melbourne – says her health suffered and that she was hurt, distressed and humiliated by the conduct of her employer after she asked last year for a formally agreed arrangement to work from home most of the time.

University College at the University of Melbourne.Credit: Facebook

The case comes as the state Labor government seeks to give workers the legally enforceable right to work remotely up to two days a week – the first Australian jurisdiction to do so – and with the right to work from home emerging as an increasingly fraught issue.

Reed is suing the college and two of its senior figures, college head Jennifer McDonald and its governing council chair, Lisa Williams, alleging breaches of the Fair Work Act after she made her flexible-working request.

She alleges her bosses made it difficult for her to do her job, demoted her and stripped her of responsibilities after she appealed in the Fair Work Commission the college’s refusal of an ongoing working-from-home arrangement.

Courts have previously held that workers have no legally enforceable right to work remotely, but Reed and her lawyers allege the college breached the Fair Work Act by violating the work-from-home agreement that the parties had struck in the Fair Work Commission, as well as committing other contraventions of the legislation.

The college denies any breaches of the act, has lodged a defence with the court and declined to discuss the case when contacted on Tuesday.

McDonald and Williams, in response to Reed’s case, have both invoked the “civil penalty privilege”, a legal concept that shields people from giving evidence that might expose them to potential penalties.

In documents filed to the court, Reed says she would often work from home following the pandemic after giving her managers notice, usually a day in advance.

But the workplace relationship took a turn for the worse in August 2024 when she asked for a hybrid working arrangement to help her manage health challenges. She intended to attend the office for on-site meetings.

Reed, who also declined to comment for this article, alleges in court documents that the college embarked on a series of “adverse actions” against her, and that the conduct became more serious after she brought her case to the commission, where a compromise, six-month work-from-home trial was agreed.

The business manager, who remains employed by the college but is on sick leave, says she was effectively demoted when a deputy head of college was installed above her in the management chain and she was stripped of some of her duties.

It is also alleged the college would needlessly call Reed into in-person workplace meetings in Parkville, with a colleague allegedly insisting on one occasion that it was a “legal requirement” for Reed to be there.

There was no technical support for her to work from home, according to Reed’s case, and she was repeatedly called into work needlessly or contacted by phone, text or email while on sick leave.

Her lawyers say the loss and damage to their client includes medical expenses after the workplace harmed her health, and “general damage in the form of hurt, distress and humiliation suffered by Ms Reed because of the contraventions”.

They are also seeking general damages for “reputational damage”, loss of earnings and loss of future earnings.

The mediation process continues.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.