Legal lessons from the first year of the Right to Disconnect

The introduction of the Right to Disconnect has not just been a regulatory shift, but a catalyst for more sustainable ways of working, changing how lawyers advise businesses on employment matters.

In comments provided to HR Leader, Warwick Ryan (pictured), a partner in the workplace relations, employment, and safety team at BigLaw firm Hicksons | Hunt & Hunt, reflected that, since its introduction last August, the Right to Disconnect (RTD) has “become a regular feature of my day-to-day advisory work”.

“I’ve supported clients in updating employment contracts, drafting policies, and navigating the often-grey area of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ out-of-hours contact in their operational context. It’s also prompted an increase in leadership training and broader cultural reviews, particularly where expectations around availability were previously unspoken,” he said.

“Internally, the legislation has sparked more open discussions within the profession around healthy boundaries and how we model respectful communication.”

While legal practice remains dynamic and responsive by nature, Ryan explained, RTD has encouraged a “more conscious approach” to how lawyers manage accessibility, both in how they advise clients and lead teams. It has also, he said, sharpened the focus on psychological safety as a key element of compliance, making the introduction of RTD “not just a regulatory shift, but a catalyst for more sustainable ways of working”.

Challenges

One of the most prominent hurdles, Ryan detailed, has been navigating the ambiguity around what constitutes ‘unreasonable’ out-of-hours contact.

“The legislation rightly allows for flexibility, but in practice, this has left many employers uncertain about where to draw the line, particularly for roles involving client responsiveness, urgent operational needs, or after-hours collaboration,” he said.

“I’ve worked closely with clients to draft policies that are legally sound yet adaptable to their business context, and to train managers on how to apply discretion in a consistent, defensible way. Beyond the legal mechanics, shifting workplace culture has been just as significant.”

Some organisations, Ryan continued, are still grappling with how to balance availability and wellbeing without compromising productivity.

“This has been a particular challenge for clients with international reporting lines, where communication across different time zones is the norm.”

“In that sense, the RTD has been a useful mechanism for sparking broader conversations about respectful communication and modernising expectations,” he said.

“While the legal risks are still emerging, proactive education and clear internal processes have been key to successful implementation.”

Employee confidence

In Ryan’s view, it may take a few more years before employees “really feel confident to exercise this right”.

In theory, he said, the legislation has created a valuable platform for improving work/life balance, “but cultural expectations remain a strong influence, particularly in high-performance environments”.

However, for many employees, especially those in client-facing or leadership roles, “there’s still a sense of implied availability that can be difficult to shift overnight. That said, we’re seeing a gradual shift”, Ryan said.

“The RTD is part of a package of changes (i.e., including the right to ask for flexible working arrangements, more flexible parental leave options and WFH) that has empowered employees to have clearer conversations about boundaries and more sympathetic work design,” he said.

“Where the legislation has been embraced proactively, through leadership modelling, policy change, and education, we’re seeing a genuine shift in expectations around after-hours communication.”

“It’s not perfect, but it’s a positive step forward and one that’s continuing to evolve,” he said.

Looking ahead

How RTD continues to be embraced by employees generally, Ryan went on, will influence whether, practically, it strikes a balance.

“If employees feel intimidated, or believe that exercising this right will be career-limiting, then it will not have achieved its aims,” he said.

“On its face, the RTD provides a reasonable foundation for protecting employee wellbeing without unduly constraining business operations. Its strength lies in its flexibility, allowing context to guide what is considered ‘reasonable’ contact. However, that flexibility can also be a source of uncertainty, particularly in complex or fast-paced industries.”

At this stage, Ryan said, most challenges stem from interpretation rather than the framework itself.

“Over time, as case law or Commission guidance develops, we may see refinements that bring greater clarity, especially around expectations for different categories of workers. For now, the law does well to set a clear standard without becoming overly prescriptive, and it encourages employers to approach availability and communication with more structure and intention,” he said.

“One issue that will emerge is whether the FWC (and the Federal Court) accepts that those that are willing to have the after-hours intruded upon, are entitled to be appropriately remunerated for doing so – and the converse.”

Final thoughts

Ultimately, Ryan said, as hybrid and flexible models become more entrenched, “the tension between availability and autonomy will remain front of mind for employers”.

“I anticipate a more sophisticated approach to managing these issues, potentially with sector-specific norms, stronger guidance from regulators, or even technological solutions that help automate boundaries,” he said.

“Cultural change tends to move more slowly than legislative reform, but the RTD has set a tone that I believe will shape workplace expectations for years to come.”

The conversation around sustainable work practices isn’t going away, Ryan concluded, “and in five years’ time, I expect we’ll be talking less about ‘disconnecting’, and more about building smarter, healthier models of engagement”.