For some Police Association members, Police’s new working-from-home policy has delivered a remarkably simple answer: No.

The problem, they say, is what happens next.

Police figures obtained under the Official Information Act show that of 304 completed applications seeking to work from home two days a week, just 27 were approved. The other 277 were declined – an approval rate of only 9%.

Even where an application had been endorsed by both the employee’s manager and a relevant director or district commander, approval was far from assured. Of 116 such applications considered by Police’s working-from-home panel, only 35 were approved.

Police does not centrally record the reasons given for declining WFH applications, making it difficult to establish why so many are being turned down – or whether decisions are being made fairly and consistently.

For the Police Association, individual cases are beginning to raise questions about how the policy is being applied.

The issue is not whether every request to work from home should be approved. Police has legitimate operational requirements, and some jobs clearly require a greater physical presence than others.

The question is whether, when Police says no, the member can understand why the statutory grounds for refusing the request apply to their particular role and circumstances.

That is the common thread running through two cases the association is working on.

Supported but declined

One member had been working flexibly from home before the new policy took effect.

When formal applications were required, the member sought to work two days a week at home, while making it clear that their flexibility would remain around occasions when being physically present was necessary.

The application was supported by the member’s manager, who confirmed that the work was being delivered effectively, that the team was geographically dispersed and that much of the work was conducted remotely.

It was nevertheless declined.

The decision cited regular workplace presence, including visibility, engagement, collaboration and leadership, as an operational expectation.

The member says the decision did not demonstrate why those general expectations required them to be physically present in the office all week.

For the member, the practical consequences are significant. Returning to the workplace five days a week means a substantial daily commute on a demanding, high-risk route, considerably more time on the road and a major increase in travel costs. “My petrol bill is now more than my mortgage payments.”

More importantly, the member says the additional commuting raises concerns about fatigue and concentration. “This isn’t just about my commute. This isn't just about the economics of it. This is about being alert and focused – the best I can be at work while making sure I get home each day.

“I love working for Police. I love the job that I do. But I seriously have to consider if this is sustainable,” the member says.

Another go, another answer

A second member’s experience raises a different question: what happens when an employee attempts to address the reasons given for an initial refusal?

The member applied to work from home two days a week – something they had been permitted to do since they started with Police. The first application was declined on grounds including customer demand and the need for the work to be performed from Police premises.

The member sought advice and submitted a further application addressing those concerns and providing additional evidence about their work.

The member’s manager supported the arrangement, and the application ultimately went through the formal process.

It was declined again.

The member takes issue not only with the lack of a clear explanation for the decision but with the failure to explain why the additional information had not addressed the concerns raised in the first decision.

“Where’s the documentation that backs up their rationale that I ‘cannot meet customer demand’? They just sent the exact same ‘denied’ response and there is no obvious way to have it independently reviewed.”

The loss of flexibility has disrupted the member’s family arrangement, while increased commuting has added financial pressure at a time when household costs are already rising.

“I don’t earn a particularly big salary, and neither does my partner. It’s hard and this has just made it even harder. It's the ‘person’ that the policy just does not consider… The whole process is so stressful.”

No clear way back

Under the Employment Relations Act, an employer can refuse a flexible-working request only on specified grounds and must state the ground relied on and explain why it applies.

The association says some Police decisions do not clearly make that connection.

“The issue isn’t whether Police can say no,” senior employment adviser Catherine Bates says. “It is whether it can explain clearly and specifically why the grounds for saying no apply to that member and their particular role. When someone receives a generic decline and has no meaningful avenue to have that decision reviewed, there is a real accountability gap.”

The association has repeatedly raised concerns about the absence of a formal Police review mechanism and decisions that, in its view, do not adequately explain how the statutory grounds apply.

Police’s WFH process for two-day applications requires endorsement from a director, district commander or equivalent before an application goes to a national panel.

The panel considers factors including the nature of the work, collaboration, team development, performance, wellbeing, security and business impact.

The association says those factors need to be considered in the context of the statutory grounds for refusal, rather than becoming additional hurdles an employee must clear.

The processing time is another concern. Police reported that 260 of 893 applications with an outcome took more than 30 days to determine. The average processing time was 22 days.

The association has taken its concerns to the Labour Inspectorate, asking it to examine the policy and its implementation, and is looking at other avenues to ensure members are being treated fairly and in accordance with the law.

A question of trust

For association president Steve Watt, the issue is not about guaranteeing members a particular outcome.

“Police is entitled to set expectations about where work is done,” he says.

“Members can accept that not every job can be done from home. But Police has a responsibility to apply its policy fairly and transparently.

The 91% decline rate does not, by itself, establish why applications were declined. But it does establish the scale of the issue, Steve says.

And when the reasons for those decisions are not centrally recorded, it becomes difficult to determine whether similar jobs and circumstances are being treated consistently.

For members caught in the new system, the issue is bigger than whether working from home is convenient. It is whether, when Police says no, the member can understand why – and whether there is a meaningful way to challenge the decision if they believe it is wrong.