A Queensland teacher’s lawsuit against her former employer for wrongful dismissal is expected to be a key case regarding Australia’s “right to disconnect” laws, although experts caution that it may not provide clear legal guidance. The teacher claims she was dismissed after refusing to respond to allegations of inappropriate behaviour made during school holidays. According to reports, her refusal led the school to substantiate the claims.
Additionally, she asserts that the school targeted her for raising concerns about child safety issues. In her filing, she alleges a breach of her right to disconnect, which was established by legislation passed by the Albanese government in the previous year. This law allows employees to decline any contact from employers or third parties outside work hours unless such refusal is deemed unreasonable, as in emergencies. The legislation also protects workers from being disciplined or terminated for rejecting after-hours communication.
Employers that violate these laws can face fines of up to $18,000. RMIT University’s Professor of Law, Shelley Marshall, remarked that while the case could highlight the right to disconnect, it certainly encompasses broader claims regarding unfair dismissal and general protections under the Fair Work Act. She emphasised the complexities involved in applying this legislation, especially in sectors that require operational communication beyond standard hours, like education and emergency services.
The court’s decision might hinge more on the legality of the dismissal due to procedural unfairness or retaliation for asserting workplace rights rather than the right to disconnect itself.
Regarding the right to disconnect, employees are afforded the ability to refuse contact outside standard working hours unless emergency circumstances exist, and they cannot face repercussions for such refusals. If employees believe their rights have been infringed, they are encouraged to first approach their employer and then escalate the matter to the Fair Work Commission if necessary.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable refusal to communicate can vary. Several factors affect this determination, including the nature of the communication, its disruptive potential, whether the employee is compensated for after-hours contact, their role’s responsibilities, and any personal circumstances affecting them. Employees with contracts that contain clauses allowing overtime without additional pay may find it challenging to leverage the new protections effectively.
In summary, this case reveals the tensions between workplace demands and new legal frameworks aimed at safeguarding employee rights.