The first public test of the right to disconnect legislation is drawing close attention from business leaders – particularly with small businesses set to come under the new rules from August 2025.

A Queensland teacher is seeking nearly $800,000 in compensation from her former employer after being dismissed for not responding to work messages during school holidays.

According to an exclusive report by the AFR, the teacher claims her employment was terminated after she failed to respond to allegations made against her regarding “repeated patterns of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour”, which she claims were sent while she was on school holidays.

The AFR went on to report that “the teacher alleged she was targeted because she had made complaints about child safety at the school and against a person charged with reviewing the school and its staff”. Following this, she took a period of stress leave.

The teacher was terminated after failing to respond to her employer’s allegations within the specified timeframe – her request for an extension was denied, with the employer arguing she was not on school holidays at the time.

As a result, she has initiated the first public case under the government’s right to disconnect legislation, seeking $730,000 in lost future earnings – based on the assumption she would have remained employed for six more years – and an additional $50,000 for emotional distress.

With small businesses set to come under the legislation in August, many employers – across small, medium and large organisations – are concerned that this case could open the floodgates for similar claims.

Amy Zhang, Executive Counsel and Team Leader at Harmers Workplace Lawyers, says that possibility cannot be ruled out.

“This case is a good reminder to employers to ensure that their line managers and management are cognisant of the potential consequences of taking adverse action against an employee for exercising their right to disconnect,” she says.

“It’s important to ensure regular training is provided to managers and HR in this regard.” 

What does this mean for employers?

While the right to disconnect features strongly in this case, it represents just one element of a broader adverse action claim, says Zhang.

“The applicant contends that as a result of her exercise of various workplace rights, including the right to disconnect, she has been subjected to adverse action.

“What seems to be in dispute in this case is whether the requirement to respond was, properly characterised, outside of working hours and thus whether the right to disconnect is engaged at all.”

The “interesting and significant” aspect of this case will be how the court chooses to proceed and deal with this issue, she adds.

“[AHRI’s] research shows that sometimes new laws can be a win-win.”  Hon Amanda Rishworth, Minister for Workplace Relations

Zhang says it’s somewhat of a “grey area” about whether refusal to respond to allegations of misconduct over routine business-as-usual communications will make a difference in the court’s decision.

“It will always depend on the specific circumstances at hand. For example, if an employee is on leave, considerations that will be relevant include how long the employee is on leave for, the nature of the employee’s leave, and whether the misconduct allegations could wait until the employee returns from leave.”

Noting that the circumstances of this case are quite specific, Zhang notes that it will be interesting to see whether the court offers any broader commentary on how the right to disconnect intersects with disciplinary processes, medical information requests, or independent medical assessments. 

“It may also clarify whether, and to what extent, employers can require responses to allegations during periods of leave, including personal leave.”

The impact of the right to disconnect

Since its introduction in August 2024, the right to disconnect legislation has drawn criticism from some who view it as overreach, arguing that the responsibility for managing out-of-hours contact should rest with employers.

For others, it signalled the introduction of additional red tape at a time when the industrial relations landscape is already undergoing significant change and disruption.

In an exclusive interview with HRM, the newly appointed Minister for Workplace Relations, Hon Amanda Rishworth, says: “If we look at some of the predictions of what was expected to happen, we just haven’t seen widespread problems. 

“We obviously have to look at it workplace-by-workplace… but where it has been implemented, it really has led to good outcomes.”

Recent research from the Australian HR Institute backs this up, with over half of employers saying it had improved engagement and productivity at their organisation, and 37 per cent reporting a perceived reduction in stress. 

“I think [AHRI’s] research shows that sometimes new laws can be a win-win,” says Minister Rishworth. “But for small businesses, I do understand it can sometimes be confusing. 

“The Fair Work Ombudsman has a [free] advisory service that gives tailored advice to small business employers and can help small business employers understand their obligations.”

 Despite generally positive sentiment from the business community, many employers are watching the school teacher case with anxious anticipation. 

While only two formal applications under the right to disconnect have been made to date – neither of which proceeded to a decision – more than 200 related inquiries have been lodged with the Fair Work Ombudsman, according to The AFR, signalling, at the very least, that application of this new law – whether from the employee or employers’ perspective – isn’t always clear cut.

How can employers protect themselves from claims like this?

For employers looking to protect their businesses, Zhang cautions about proceeding with any form of discipline in response to or following an employee’s reasonable refusal to engage with communication outside of contracted hours.

“Employers should be mindful that the reverse onus applies, meaning that employers need to disprove that the ‘punishment’ was because of the exercise of the right to disconnect,” she adds.  

It’s also important to assess employment contracts and remuneration approaches.

“An employer could contend that it was unreasonable for an employee not to respond to contact because they are compensated for the out-of-hours contact by reason of award entitlements for overtime, or through compensation under their individual employment contracts. 

“Accordingly, an employer could contend that the employee was not exercising the right to disconnect and therefore not exercising a workplace right, and their adverse action case therefore fails on that basis.”

“Employers should be mindful that the reverse onus applies, meaning that employers need to disprove that the ‘punishment’ was because of the exercise of the right to disconnect.” – Amy Zhang

As outlined in a previous HRMOnline article, it’s also important to review all broader documentation related to someone’s roles and responsibilities.

“Update or implement policies with practical examples of reasonable after-hours contact – [for example], last-minute work location changes or urgent work issues which specifically relate to the employer – and establish a process for addressing concerns about out-of-hours contact,” says Molly Shanahan, Senior Associate at Snow Legal. 

“Employment contracts could [also] be revised to set expectations for reasonable contact, adjust salary set-off clauses, or [specify] additional compensation included for employee availability to be contacted after hours.”

All information, content and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.