Disconnecting in a connected world: The effectiveness of the Australian Right to Disconnect

In August 2024, the introduction of the right to disconnect saw Australia join a growing number of countries providing employees with a statutory right to disconnect from work.

This means that employees are now legally entitled to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact and/or attempted contact by their employer or by a third party (e.g. a client) outside their contracted working hours, provided their refusal is reasonable. But how effective is such a workplace right in addressing the negative effects of employees being hyperconnected to work?

In this article we look at Australia’s Right to Disconnect within the broader global context and suggest that, although the Australian Right to Disconnect is in its early days, the global context indicates that the Right to Disconnect alone may not effectively provide employees with a mechanism to switch-off from work. Rather, employers should also have practical measures in place which enable employees to meaningfully disconnect from work. And, as the experience of other countries teaches us, employers will more effectively address the negative effects of hyperconnectivity, including minimising the risk of disputes over the Right to Disconnect and work hours, if they do have such practical measures in place.

The reasons behind a right to disconnect

When Australia introduced its Right to Disconnect, it joined over 20 countries across the world such as France, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Argentina, Chile and Mexico which had already introduced measures to support a right to disconnect for employees. The increasing global momentum for an employee right to disconnect indicates a broader issue of tension in modern-day workplaces around the world: how to balance workplace flexibility against work-life balance.

In a post-pandemic world, employers and employees alike have embraced the advantages of being able to work more flexibly, whether that be by working remotely or at non-typical hours of the day. However, the move to flexible working and the technological changes it has involved have also left some employees feeling as if they are connected to work 24/7, with negative effects on their wellbeing. Studies show such negative effects include employees reporting higher levels of health issues, poorer wellbeing and lesser productivity. A recent study found that less than two in five women feel able to disconnect from work and this directly impacts upon their mental and physical wellbeing, with women who regularly work overtime ‘reporting significantly lower levels of loyalty to their employer, motivation at work and productivity’.¹

An ensuing reaction has therefore been a global trend of countries around the world providing employees with a workplace right to disconnect. However, the global experience draws into doubt the effectiveness of having such a right and suggests that practical measures on behalf of the employer are also needed.

Is a right to disconnect effective?

The experience of other countries which have a right to disconnect indicates that the right alone may not be effective in achieving its purpose. For example, a study of employees from nine EU countries which had all introduced legislative measures to support a right to disconnect for employees, indicated that the right was more effective at allowing employees to disconnect from work (and addressing the negative effects associated with hyperconnectivity) where an employer also had practical measures in place to set a culture of disconnection. Some of the measures reported included:

• introducing a workplace policy on the right to disconnect;
• actively raising awareness about the right and expectations around employees’ work hours through employee training; and
• tailoring e-mail signatures to clarify when employees are not required to respond.

Other practical measures employers can implement include:

• updating contracts of employment;
• streamlining means of communicating with employees, including reducing the number of means used; and
• encouraging employees to utilise out-of-office notifications when they are on leave.

What does this mean for Australia’s Right to Disconnect?

Australia’s Right to Disconnect is in its early days. It has only been in force for around six months and the Fair Work Commission has also so far refrained from issuing guidelines on how the legislation creating the Right should be interpreted and applied by employers. We therefore anticipate that 2025 will be an illuminating year for the effectiveness of Australia’s Right to Disconnect; whether it practically affords employees with the ability to disconnect from work and addresses the negative effects of hyperconnectivity or, whether it becomes the subject of disputes between employers and employees (and unions). We suspect the latter, and the global experience tells us something similar.

It is, however, clear that there are a range of compelling reasons as to why setting a culture which encourages employees to disconnect from the workplace is beneficial and that practical measures implemented by employers are crucial in setting this culture.

Footnotes

1. Deloitte’s 2024 Women at Work: Global Outlook Report p. 13.