Everyone braced for a fight that never came.
When the right to disconnect arrived in August 2024, the predictions ran hot. Employer groups warned of chaos. Commentators forecast a flood of disputes. Talkback callers imagined workers ignoring their bosses on principle and dragging them off to the tribunal for the crime of sending a Tuesday-night email.
A year and a half on, the most striking thing about the law is the silence. The Fair Work Commission has yet to hand down a single substantive ruling on it. The deluge of stop orders never materialised.
And yet, in the background, something shifted: Australians clawed back hours of their own time, and a good chunk of HR rewrote how their organisations think about the line between work and life.
That is the real story of the right to disconnect's first year. For HR managers, it's also where the lessons live.
So let's unpack what the past year has actually taught us, what the data shows, where the risk sits (it's probably not where you think), and how to build a right to disconnect policy that holds up. ⬇️
The right to disconnect is a workplace right tucked into the Fair Work Act 2009.
In plain terms, it lets an employee refuse to monitor, read or respond to work-related contact (or attempted contact) outside their working hours, unless that refusal is unreasonable.
Importantly, it covers contact from third parties too, so a client, supplier or customer chasing your employee at 9pm sits inside the same rules (Fair Work Ombudsman).
The right to disconnect came into effect on 26 August 2024 for non-small-business employers – that's anyone with 15 or more employees.
For small businesses with fewer than 15 staff, it switched on a year later, on 26 August 2025 (Fair Work Ombudsman).
The rules themselves are identical for both; the only difference was the runway. So while the headline "one year on" fits the big-employer cohort neatly, remember that a whole swathe of small businesses are only a few months into living with it.
One detail that often gets lost: this isn't just an Act-level right floating above your awards.
The Fair Work Commission inserted a right to disconnect term into all 155 modern awards, mirroring the obligations in the legislation.
So for most award-covered employees, the right shows up in two places at once.
The law does not ban after-hours contact.
Your managers can still send that email. What changed is the expectation of a response. The right regulates whether an employee can be punished for switching off, not whether the message can be sent in the first place.
If you only measured the right to disconnect by tribunal activity, you'd conclude it had done almost nothing.
As of its first anniversary, the Fair Work Commission confirmed it hadn't substantively considered any right to disconnect matters or resolved a single dispute on the question.
The Commission has even held back its promised written guidelines, taking the view it'll be better placed to issue them once it has actual disputes to learn from (per its own statements, reported across legal commentary including Lexology and Mayer Brown).
So we have a high-profile law, a year and a half old, with no body of case law explaining how it works in practice. That's unusual, and it's quietly stressful for anyone trying to write compliant policy.
But measure it by behaviour instead, and a different picture emerges. 👇
Research from the Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute – which tracks unpaid overtime each year for its Go Home On Time Day – found that average unpaid overtime fell from 5.4 to 3.6 hours per week in the three months after the law landed, roughly a one-third drop.
By the time of its November 2025 report, the trend for full-time workers looked durable rather than a blip: full-time unpaid overtime fell from 6.2 hours a week in 2023, to 4.1 in 2024, to 3.8 in 2025.
In wage terms, that's a slide from about $13,392 in foregone pay per full-time worker to roughly $8,892. For full-timers, the right to disconnect is working.
Employer sentiment moved too.
The Australian HR Institute's mid-2025 Quarterly Australian Work Outlook found that 58% of employers believe the right to disconnect has improved employee engagement and productivity in their organisation.
That's a majority of employers crediting a law many of them initially resisted.
The same body of research found that 93% of employers had taken at least one concrete step over the year, most commonly setting clearer expectations around after-hours communication (29%) and giving managers additional training on handling it (27%).
56% of employers reported receiving formal concerns or requests from staff wanting to exercise the right, with a striking regional skew – Western Australian employers reported the highest engagement at 78% (Robert Half, 2025). Workers, in other words, aren't just aware of the right; in many workplaces they're actively using it.
So, lesson one. The absence of litigation is not the absence of impact. The right to disconnect has done most of its work culturally – through renegotiated norms, quieter weekends and fewer reflexive replies – rather than through orders and penalties.
If your board is measuring the law's relevance by how many disputes you've had, they're looking at the wrong dial.
The whole thing turns on one slippery word: unreasonable. An employee can refuse contact unless that refusal is unreasonable, so the entire question of who's in the right collapses into that single test.
Helpfully, the Act doesn't leave it floating.
Section 333M sets out five factors that must be weighed when deciding whether a refusal is unreasonable:
There's also a hard override: a refusal is automatically unreasonable if the contact is required by law (s 333M).
Reasonableness moves predictably along role and pay.
The more senior and more highly paid an employee, the more reasonable it becomes to expect some after-hours responsiveness where there's a legitimate reason, particularly if their package already reflects that availability.
Last-minute roster changes and shift-cover requests will usually be reasonable. Global teams spanning time zones tilt towards reasonableness. And any allowance, flexibility or time in lieu you've provided counts directly in your favour.
The trap is assuming this means executives are simply "exempt". They aren't.
Nobody is carved out. The same midnight message that would be unreasonable to send a junior employee with young kids might be entirely reasonable to send a well-remunerated department head on call for a crisis.
The right is contextual, not categorical, and that's exactly why a good right to disconnect policy can't be a list of hard rules.
The moment you write "no contact after 6pm, full stop," you've created a standard you'll breach the first time there's a genuine emergency, and one that ignores the very factors the law tells you to weigh. Principle beats prescription here.
Given there's no case law, where's the exposure? Not, it turns out, in the standalone disputes everyone feared. ⬇️
When a right to disconnect dispute reaches the Commission, the remedy on offer is a "stop order" – an order telling the employee to stop unreasonably refusing contact, or telling the employer to stop pressuring the employee or taking action against them.
Crucially, the Commission can't award money at this stage; its stop-order powers don't extend to compensation. So an aggrieved employee can't use the disconnect dispute pathway itself to extract a payout.
The teeth come later: breaching a stop order can attract civil penalties.
The far bigger risk runs through a different door.
Because the right to disconnect is a "workplace right" under the general protections regime, an employee who's disciplined, demoted or sacked for a reasonable refusal can bring an adverse-action claim, and those carry serious financial consequences.
The right to disconnect is the most visible surface of a much larger and more dangerous compliance environment (psychosocial work health and safety duties) and that environment carries far heavier penalties than the disconnect regime ever will.
Safe Work Australia recognises high job demands, including consistently long working hours, as a psychosocial hazard.
So requiring unreasonable additional hours can put you in breach of your primary duty under work health and safety law to provide a workplace that's safe and without risks to health, which now explicitly includes managing psychosocial risks.
The state codes have made the link unmistakable.
A right to disconnect breach gets you a stop order or, downstream, an adverse-action claim.
A psychosocial WHS failure is a safety offence.
Failing to manage psychosocial risk can amount to a Category 3 offence, escalating to Category 1 or 2 where it causes or exposes a worker to injury.
And in a sign of where this is heading, a Victorian employer was fined close to $380,000 in late 2023 for failing to identify or address psychosocial risk. ⚠️
So your right to disconnect policy is one control measure sitting inside a broader duty to manage psychosocial hazards. "Availability creep" is a documented hazard you have a positive legal duty to control.
And the way you find it is the way you find any hazard: through your existing data. Turnover, sick leave, grievances, engagement and pulse surveys, even patterns in your messaging tools will tell you which teams can't switch off long before a complaint does.
If you take nothing else from the past year, take this: stop filing the right to disconnect under "employee relations" and start filing it under "health and safety".
Here's the bit your equity and inclusion colleagues will want to hear about.
While full-time unpaid overtime fell and held, the Centre for Future Work found the opposite happening for part-timers – their unpaid overtime actually rose, from 2.8 hours a week in 2024 to 3.7 hours in 2025.
Part of the reason is that part-time and casual staff cluster in industries like retail and hospitality, which have a high share of small businesses only covered from August 2025.
Part of it is power: insecure workers are less likely to know their rights and less able to assert them. The right is simply less effective for people who aren't given enough paid hours to do their jobs in the first place.
Inside organisations, the right can quietly become a one-way street.
Managers absorb after-hours messages from their teams, while the reciprocal protection never seems to flow back up. The work of embedding the right has lagged most among middle and senior managers, the very people whose behaviour sets the norm. Which is the cue for the most repeated practitioner lesson of the year: this stands or falls on your managers. Policy doesn't role-model itself.
Here's how to put a year of learning to work. Three templates you can adapt today.
Hand this to your managers. It maps directly to the section 333M factors and turns an abstract legal test into a thirty-second decision before they hit send.
Before you contact someone outside their hours, ask:
If you'd struggle to justify the contact against these five, don't send it. If you genuinely can, note briefly why – a one-line record protects everyone.
Keep it principle-based, not a list of banned hours. A workable structure:
A small cultural fix with outsized impact. Encourage managers to top non-urgent out-of-hours messages with a single line:
"Not urgent, no need to look at this until you're next working. Flagging it now so I don't forget."
It costs nothing, removes the implied pressure to respond, and if a dispute ever did arise, it demonstrates the right culture in writing.
The right to disconnect didn't blow up Australian workplaces, and it didn't fill the Fair Work Commission with disputes. What it did was subtler and, in the long run, probably more important: it gave a name and a legal backbone to a boundary most of us already knew we'd lost..
For HR, the year's real teaching is that compliance was never the hard part. The hard part is culture, and culture is made by what managers do at 9pm, not by what a policy says at any hour.
🚀 Navigating Australia's new HR landscape? You don't have to do it alone.
Subscribe-HR's cloud-based system helps Australian organisations turn regulatory complexity into competitive advantage.
Built specifically for ANZ organisations facing exactly these challenges
Discover Subscribe-HR | Purpose-built for forward-thinking Australian businesses navigating the future of work