South Australian tribunal backs salon owner in right-to-disconnect case
A South Australian employment tribunal has ruled that a vegan hair salon owner did not breach the country's new "right to disconnect" laws, despite sending apprentices TikTok and Snapchat videos and other messages outside working hours. The Deputy President found that the law grants employees a right to ignore such contact, and the key legal question was not whether the messages were unwelcome, but whether the employer actively prevented staff from disconnecting — which was not established here. The decision, one of the first to test the legislation, is being seen as a significant win for employers navigating the new rules.
Apprentices Amelia Elliot and Jessica Kalleske told the South Australian Employment Tribunal that Adelaide Eco Hair Room owner Tanika McGuire contacted them persistently outside work hours, including on days off, at trade school and while on sick leave, and grew visibly annoyed if they did not respond promptly. Kalleske alleged McGuire even contacted her mother while she was seeking privacy over a medical issue, though this evidence went unchallenged as McGuire did not participate in the proceedings. Australia's right to disconnect law came into force in 2024 and was extended to small businesses in August 2025, allowing workers to ignore after-hours contact from employers, colleagues, clients or suppliers; the tribunal nonetheless concluded that, while the conduct was "unpleasant and intrusive," the apprentices faced no real consequences for not responding, so the law was not breached.
- Salon boss cleared of breaching Australia's new "right to disconnect" law
- Apprentices were sent after-hours TikToks and messages, felt pressured to reply
- Tribunal ruled law only bars bosses from stopping staff ignoring contact
New here? Start with this
South Australia's employment tribunal has ruled on one of the first test cases of the country's new "right to disconnect" law, which came into force in 2024 and was extended to small businesses in August 2025. The law lets employees ignore work-related contact from employers or colleagues outside their working hours. The case involved a hairdressing apprenticeship, where two apprentices complained that their boss regularly messaged them out of hours, including on days off and during sick leave.
The tribunal had to decide not whether the messages were annoying or unwanted, but whether the employer had actually stopped the apprentices from exercising their right to ignore such contact. It found that, although the behaviour was described as intrusive, the apprentices did not suffer any real consequences for not replying, so the law had not been broken.
This matters because it is one of the earliest rulings to interpret how the right-to-disconnect law applies in practice, particularly for small businesses. It offers guidance to employers and workers alike on where the legal boundary lies between unwelcome contact and unlawful pressure to respond.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the tribunal's reasoning argue it correctly applies the law as written: the right to disconnect protects employees from being penalised for ignoring after-hours contact, not from receiving it at all, and no evidence showed the apprentices suffered real consequences for not replying. They contend that conflating "unwelcome" with "unlawful" would leave small business owners exposed to liability for almost any informal message, and that clear, narrow tests are essential so employers can understand their obligations under a brand-new law. On this view, the tribunal was rightly cautious about expanding the legislation beyond what Parliament actually enacted.
The case against
Critics, including advocates for young and vulnerable workers, argue the ruling sets an uncomfortably high bar that could hollow out the law's protective intent, since persistent contact, visible annoyance at delayed replies, and reaching out to a family member during a private medical matter can exert real psychological pressure even without formal sanctions. They contend apprentices, often junior and financially dependent on their employer's goodwill, may feel unable to ignore messages regardless of whether any explicit penalty exists, making "no real consequence" an unrealistic standard. For them, the case shows a gap between the law's stated purpose of protecting personal time and its practical operation for workers with limited bargaining power.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Landmark ‘right to disconnect’ ruling: Major win for bosses after salon owner ‘stressed’ her staff by bombarding them with TikTok videos after hours”.