The South Australian Employment Tribunal has rejected claims that after-hours TikTok and Snapchat messages sent to employees breached their right to disconnect. The ruling provides useful guidance on when out-of-hours communications may cross the line.
In issue
- The South Australian Employment Tribunal (Tribunal) was required to consider whether the employer’s conduct prevented the employees from exercising their right to disconnect.
- Its decisions in Elliot v Mcguire [2026] SAET 107 (Elliot) and Kalleske v Mcguire [2026] SAET 106 (Kalleske) provide useful early guidance on the right to disconnect, which was progressively introduced in Australian workplaces in 2024 and 2025.
The background
The cases involved two apprentice hairdressers employed by Eco Hair Room (the Employer). Each employee alleged, among other contraventions, that the Employer had contravened the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2020 by preventing them from exercising their right to disconnect.
Section 333M of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) permits an employee to refuse to monitor, read or respond to work-related contact outside working hours, unless that refusal is unreasonable. The Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2020 also prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly preventing an employee from exercising their right to disconnect.
In Elliot, the employee received regular after-hours contact via TikTok and Snapchat. She told the Tribunal that failing to respond to these communications affected the Employer’s attitude towards her when she next attended work. On one occasion, she was also asked to take the workplace phone home over a long weekend and monitor it. While she took the phone home, she declined to monitor it and the request was not pursued further.
In Kalleske, the employee received regular communications outside her working hours, including while attending school, on days off and during an approved period of leave. She told the Tribunal that the Employer’s actions created pressure for her to remain available.
The decisions
The Tribunal rejected the right to disconnect allegations in both matters, on the basis that the Employer’s conduct did not have the effect of directly or indirectly preventing each employee from exercising their right. In each case, the Tribunal considered whether each employee remained practically able to leave the communications unanswered.
In Elliot, the Tribunal found that while the employee anticipated an unfavourable reaction if she ignored the messages, she experienced no actual sanction or other adverse action for continuing to do so.
In Kalleske, while the Tribunal accepted that the communications were intrusive and placed pressure on the employee to respond, there was no evidence of any actual adverse consequences when she chose not to do so. The Tribunal therefore found that the Employer had not taken any action to prevent her from exercising her workplace right.
The decisions therefore distinguish between employer behaviour which may pressure an employee to respond and behaviour that directly or indirectly prevents an employee from exercising their right to disconnect.
Implications for you
For employers, the decisions reiterate that the right to disconnect does not prohibit employers from contacting employees outside working hours. Rather, employees have the right to refuse to monitor, read, or respond to those communications, provided their refusal is reasonable.
The decisions provide only early guidance. They did not substantially test the separate question of when an employee’s refusal to engage with out-of-hours contact will itself be unreasonable. Section 333M(3) sets out several matters for consideration, including the reason for the contact, the method and degree of disruption, compensation for availability or additional work, the nature and seniority of the employee’s role, and the employee’s personal circumstances, including family or caring responsibilities. Future decisions applying those factors will be particularly important in defining the right’s practical boundaries.
Employers should also remember that the right to disconnect forms part of the general protections framework of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), as exercising the right is expressly defined as a workplace right. Employers must therefore exercise caution when managing out-of-hours contact. Where appropriate, employers should consider implementing policies governing out-of-hours contact and seeking advice regarding how best to manage their workforce through the lens of these provisions.
