‘Right to disconnect’ a win for some, contentious for others

The passing of the “right to disconnect” laws is a win for many overworked and burnt-out employees. However, not all are pleased with the reforms.

The government officially passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023 on 8 February, granting employees the right to disconnect from work communication after hours.

Those in favour

As workers will be able to better separate their personal and work lives, many are pleased with the amendments, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. “Someone who is not being paid 24 hours a day shouldn’t be penalised if they’re not online and available 24 hours a day,” Mr Albanese said at a news conference.

Minister for Industrial Relations Tony Burke shared similar sentiments: “The world is connected, but that has created a problem. If you’re in a job where you’re only paid for the exact hours that you’re working, some people are now constantly in a situation of getting in trouble if they’re not checking their emails.”

One of the many industries that have welcomed the change is the education sector. The Independent Education Union (IEU) came forward to support overworked teachers, citing the legislation as a win for education workers.

“Employer requests, parental queries and student contact regularly encroach on the personal time of staff. With the growth of mobile technology and assumed 24/7 connectivity, critical workload and work intensification issues have only been exacerbated,” commented IEU Queensland and Northern Territory branch secretary Terry Burke.

“Teachers cannot be permanently ‘on call’, particularly when our sector is facing an attrition crisis. Employees need a break from work and are entitled to valuable downtime. While there is still much to be done to address workload pressures in schools, a ‘right to disconnect’ will provide overworked school staff a right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to employer or work-related contact after hours or on weekends.”

The advancement of technology has continuously been used as a reasoning for these amendments, as employers can now maintain constant communication with employees. Especially with the rise of remote and hybrid working, the lines have been blurred between personal and work time, compounding burnout.

Not everyone is as optimistic

As with any major decision that’s made, people will be in contention. One major reason there has been pushback is the ambiguity of the laws.

The bill states: “An employee may 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.”

What defines reasonable and unreasonable may be up to interpretation and could land employers in hot water.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) is one group that has argued this: “The margin for error (i.e. not realising the time or senior members of staff not being aware that a particular employee has directed the employer not to contact them after hours) is very broad.” The laws were also described as “rushed and flawed”.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has expressed concerns over the harshness of the law and has vowed to scrap the criminal penalties if the coalition wins its next election.

“We will take a policy that’s in our country’s best interests that provides support to workers but doesn’t make it impossible, particularly for small businesses, to employ staff,” said Mr Dutton.

Whether for or against the amendments, employers must be wary of the consequences of breaching the law. Improved communication and organisation during work hours are a must to avoid any legal trouble.

Jack Campbell

Jack is the editor at HR Leader.