Australians now have the right to disconnect – but how workplaces react will be crucial

From today, Monday August 26, many employees in Australia get a new right, called the right to disconnect from work^[1].

This entails the right to refuse to read or respond to work-related calls, texts and emails outside their working hours, unless that refusal is unreasonable.

The Fair Work Commission says what will matter^[2] is whether the refusal is unreasonable, rather than whether the attempted contact is unreasonable.

Among the things that will determine whether a refusal is unreasonable are the employee’s role, their personal circumstances, the method and reason for the contact, how much disruption it causes them and whether they are compensated for being available or for working additional hours.

Those working for small businesses (with fewer than 15 employees) get the right to disconnect in August 2025.

As with any changes to conditions of employment, it has sparked heated debate^[3].

Supporters say the right to disconnect is needed to slow the encroachment^[4] of work into personal life. Opponents say it will harm productivity and flexibility^[5].

Fortunately, we’ve clues from overseas to guide us.

France^[6] was the first country to introduce a right to disconnect in 2017, followed by Belgium, Italy, Argentina, Chile, Luxembourg, Mexico, Philippines, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Ontario in Canada, and Ireland.

An analysis of these laws and their impact, which we are preparing for the Journal of Industrial Relations, finds that while they can improve work-life balance and wellbeing, their success depends on how they are implemented and enforced within each workplace^[7].

Employers that take right to disconnect laws seriously offer more compensation^[8] to those who are interrupted than companies that don’t, in the form of pay or time off in lieu. Unpaid overtime is significantly more common in companies without a right to disconnect policy.

In the countries that have a right to disconnect, only about 45% of workers say they are aware of it being offered in their workplace, and only about half of them say they are aware of actions to enforce it^[9].

What matters is agreement in the workplace

In some countries, including France, the law requires that employers and employee representatives come together to negotiate specific rules about when work should stop and personal time should begin.

This means that in France, there are often clear agreements about when workers can ignore emails or calls.

In Belgium, instead of making it mandatory for companies to enforce the right, the law encourages discussions about it in health and safety committees. So, while there isn’t a strict rule forcing companies to ensure workers can disconnect, there is a system in place to have conversations about it.

What each country has in common is the idea that employers and employees need to work together to find a balance between work and personal time.

This suggests that merely introducing legislation is not enough: effective implementation requires clear guidelines, awareness-raising, and a cultural shift within workplaces^[10].

Companies need to get things right at the start

A key challenge in Australia will be to make clear what is a “reasonable^[11]” refusal of a work-related contact and what is not.

The Fair Work Commission wants employers and employees to attempt to resolve this themselves^[12] before escalating disputes to the Commission.

An important part of this is consultation within workplaces^[13] at the beginning to develop training^[14] and protocols^[15] tailored to each role.

There are also practical steps workplaces can take to curb the flow^[16] of work-related information, such as disabling notifications after hours, setting up automatic out-of-office replies and scheduling emails rather than sending them immediately.

Employers should lead by example

The biggest challenge will be a cultural shift that prioritises employee wellbeing. Hyperconnectivity need not be an inevitable consequence^[17] of modern work life.

Managers should lead by example^[18] by respecting non-work hours themselves and avoiding after-hours communication.

The continued existence of the new right is far from certain. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has promised to repeal the right^[19] if he wins the next election, saying it will make it impossible for some businesses to employ staff.

Success will depend on employers and their workers agreeing on clear ground rules from the beginning.

References

1. ^{^} right to disconnect from work (www.fwc.gov.au)
2. ^{^} what will matter (www.youtube.com)
3. ^{^} heated debate (www.afr.com)
4. ^{^} encroachment (futurework.org.au)
5. ^{^} productivity and flexibility (www.afr.com)
6. ^{^} France (www.unsw.edu.au)
7. ^{^} within each workplace (op.europa.eu)
8. ^{^} compensation (www.eurofound.europa.eu)
9. ^{^} actions to enforce it (www.eurofound.europa.eu)
10. ^{^} within workplaces (op.europa.eu)
11. ^{^} reasonable (www.fwc.gov.au)
12. ^{^} resolve this themselves (www.fwc.gov.au)
13. ^{^} within workplaces (europeanlawinstitute.eu)
14. ^{^} training (www.eurofound.europa.eu)
15. ^{^} protocols (www.apsc.gov.au)
16. ^{^} curb the flow (hbr.org)
17. ^{^} inevitable consequence (journals.sagepub.com)
18. ^{^} lead by example (hbr.org)
19. ^{^} repeal the right (www.theguardian.com)