The introduction of the right to disconnect in Australian employment law marks a significant step forward in protecting employee work-life balance, particularly in an era where digital connectivity blurs the boundaries between professional duties and personal time. Implemented through amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), this right creates additional challenges for employers navigating customer demands and extended work hours.

Legislative Framework

The right to disconnect became effective for larger Australian businesses on 26 August 2024 and extended to small businesses (under 15 employees) from 26 August 2025. Embedded within the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly section 333M, and incorporated in all modern awards, this provision allows eligible employees to refuse to monitor, read, or respond to work-related communications outside their agreed working hours unless such refusal is deemed unreasonable.

“Work-related contact” encompasses any form of communication—emails, texts, phone calls, or messages on work platforms—from employers or third parties such as clients or business partners. The statute explicitly protects employees even against attempted contact beyond normal working hours.

When Is Refusal Unreasonable?

The legislation provides a test for what constitutes an “unreasonable” refusal to engage with out-of-hours communication. Factors considered include:

• The reason for the contact (e.g., urgency or legal necessity)
• The method and intrusiveness of contact
• Whether the employee is paid additional compensation for after-hours work or availability
• The employee’s role and responsibilities within the organisation
• Personal circumstances, including family or caring commitments

This flexible approach aims to balance operational realities—such as emergencies —with employee well-being.

Michelle Martin v Cairns Rudolf Steiner School (QUD 148/2025)

This case is a practical illustration of the complexities that arise when the right to disconnect and employee workplace rights intersect with employer performance management and disciplinary processes.

Facts:

Michelle Martin was a teacher employed by Cairns Rudolf Steiner School. In early 2024, she took personal leave due to stress-related health issues linked to her employment. Before returning to work, the school required her to undergo an independent medical assessment to evaluate her fitness for duty and any necessary work accommodations. The medical report specifically advised that Ms. Martin should avoid discussions or situations likely to exacerbate her work-related stress, particularly disciplinary proceedings or legal matters.

Despite this medical advice, the school proceeded in September 2024 to present Ms. Martin with six separate allegations of misconduct, requesting her written responses. This formal disciplinary process occurred while she was still under medical leave or in a vulnerable mental health state.

By late September 2024, the employer terminated Ms. Martin’s employment effective 8 October 2024, citing misconduct as the reason. Ms. Martin alleges that her dismissal was linked not to genuine misconduct but was retaliatory in response to her taking personal (stress) leave and exercising workplace rights, including the emerging legal concept of the “right to disconnect” — her refusal to engage with stressful work communications outside normal working hours or while on leave.

Issues:

The case raises several key legal questions:

• Adverse Action: Whether the dismissal constituted adverse action prohibited under the Fair Work Act 2009 because it was motivated by Ms. Martin exercising protected workplace rights, including personal leave and the “right to disconnect.”
• Reasonable Management Action: Whether the employer’s disciplinary and dismissal processes were reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way — i.e., legitimately based on misconduct and not retaliatory or discriminatory.
• Workplace Mental Health Protections: Whether the employer complied with obligations to support mental health in the workplace, particularly by respecting medical advice about avoiding stress-inducing interactions.
• Right to Disconnect: This case challenges the scope and application of the right to disconnect, assessing the employer’s obligation to respect employees’ rights not to engage in work communications outside working hours or when on leave for health reasons.

Outcome (As of August 2025):

The case is ongoing in the Federal Court of Australia with Ms. Martin seeking:

• Approximately $730,000 in lost income damages, claiming she would have remained employed for another six years if not improperly dismissed.
• $50,000 for hurt and humiliation caused by the dismissal process and employer conduct.

The Cairns Rudolf Steiner School denies wrongdoing, maintaining the dismissal was justified due to substantiated misconduct unrelated to any workplace rights exercise. The case remains at the pleading and evidence-gathering stages.

Learnings So Far

The following steps can be taken by employers to minimise the risk of dispute in relation to the right to disconnect.  

• Proactive Policy Development: Effective right-to-disconnect compliance begins with explicitly written policies outlining after-hours communication boundaries and expectations.
• Employee Consultation: Engaging staff in discussions about what constitutes reasonable contact helps align business practices with employee needs and fosters respect for personal time.
• Situational Flexibility: Employers need mechanisms to distinguish urgent matters requiring immediate attention from issues that can wait until normal working hours—for example, emergencies vs. routine administrative tasks.
• Addressing Cultural Attitudes: Some professions have traditionally value long hours and availability, but those professions now must consider cultivating a culture that balances customer service with sustainable work practices, supported by the right to disconnect framework.