Employment law for employers

The “right to disconnect” from modern workplaces

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–4 minutes

The right to disconnect, as contained in Part 8 of the  Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill (Bill), gives employees the right to refuse contact from their employers (or related parties) outside of their working hours, unless the refusal is unreasonable.  The changes in Part 8 amend various sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) and come in response to increasing concerns about psycho-social hazards in the workplace including stress and overwork.[1]

The right to disconnect provisions

The Bill is set to introduce the right to disconnect in section 333M(1) and (2) of the Act.  It states that employees have the right to:

“(1) refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from an employer outside of the employee’s working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable.

 (2) refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from a third party if the contact or attempted contact relates to their work and is outside of the employee’s working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable.“[2]

This amendment allows employees to decline communication with their employer or related entities outside of working hours, provided the refusal is not unreasonable.  Amended section 333M(3) of the Act will include a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider when determining the reasonableness of a refusal, including:

“(a) the purpose of the contact;

(b) the method and disruption caused by the contact;

(c) compensation for the employee;

(d) the employee’s role and responsibilities; and

(e) the employee’s personal circumstances, such as family or caregiving responsibilities.”

These changes will come into effect on:

  • 26 August 2024 for non-small business employers; and
  • 26 August 2025 for small business employers.[3]

Consequently, any business with more than fifteen (15) employees will need to comply with the new regulations by 26 August 2024, while small businesses with less than fifteen (15) employees will have an additional year to implement the required adjustments.

What happens when disputes regarding “reasonableness” occur?

In the event of a dispute about reasonableness, the parties are initially encouraged to resolve the dispute at a workplace level through discussion.  However, if discussions fail to reach a resolution, either party can make an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 333N(3) to have the matter resolved.

Under the proposed implementation of section 333N(3) to the Act, the Fair Work Commission would have the authority to:

  • make a stop order under section 333P, requiring the employee to stop refusing contact or stop taking certain actions; or
  • otherwise, deal with the situation.[4]

Takeaways

  • Employers need to be aware of the right to disconnect laws and should take steps to ensure that they ‘establish clear boundaries’ to prevent excessive work-related demands after work.
  • The right to disconnect provisions commences on 26 August 2024 for businesses with more than fifteen (15) employees, and on 26 August 2026 for business with less than fifteen (15) employees.

Links and further references

Legislation

Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Further information about employment law for employers

If you need advice on how changes to the Fair Work Act affect your business, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1]     University of New South Wales, ‘Right to Disconnect: Will it work?  And what does it mean?’ (Newsroom, 3 March 2024) https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/03/right-to-disconnect–will-it-work–and-what-does-it-mean—#:~:text=Australia’s%20new%20legal%20right%20to,outside%20of%20designated%20working%20hours., accessed [1 May 2024]; Parliament of Australia, ‘Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2018’ (Parliamentary Business) https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd052 (accessed 2 May 2024).

[2]     Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill.

[3]     Fair Work Ombudsman, ‘Right to Disconnect’ (About Us) https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/legislation-changes/closing-loopholes/right-to-disconnect (accessed 2 May 2024).

[4] Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill s 333N(3).


Related insights about employment law for employers

  • AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators.  This article discusses the…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Contractual and equitable obligations of confidence

    Contractual and equitable obligations of confidence

    This is an update to the article “Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info” published by Dundas Lawyers on 24 February 2026. On 20 April 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) allowed an appeal in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

Send this to a friend