Tribunal rules salon owner did not breach right to disconnect laws despite after-hours messaging
A South Australian hair salon owner has avoided breaching recently introduced right to disconnect laws despite sending numerous after-hours TikTok videos and messages to her apprentices, in a landmark ruling that clarifies the limits of Australia's workplace contact regulations.
The South Australian Employment Tribunal heard claims from two hairdressing apprentices, Amelia Elliot and Jessica Kalleske, who alleged that Adelaide Eco Hair Room owner Tanika McGuire pressured them to respond to out-of-hours communications, creating stress and an expectation of constant availability.
The right to disconnect legislation, introduced through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024, grants employees the legal right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to work-related contact outside their working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable. The laws came into effect for larger employers in August 2024, and were extended to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees in August 2025.
Ms Kalleske told the tribunal there was a consistent pattern of contact outside working hours, including on days off, while attending trade school and when she was sick or on leave. She said if one staff member did not respond, Ms McGuire would contact others, creating an ongoing expectation of availability and contributing to stress.
She recalled needing urgent medical treatment and requesting privacy after supplying medical certificates, but alleged Ms McGuire continued to repeatedly call and message her. Ms Kalleske said the salon owner also attempted to contact her family, including calling her mother, in an effort to obtain information about her condition.
Ms Elliot gave evidence that Ms McGuire frequently sent her TikTok and Snapchat videos outside work hours, mostly about her social life, along with messages about non-urgent work matters. The tribunal noted that if Ms Elliot did not respond before returning to work, the salon owner would be in a bad mood and would ignore her.
In one incident, Ms Elliot alleged she was required to take the salon's mobile phone home over a long weekend so she could receive work messages, though she did not actively monitor the device while she had it.
Critical distinction in the law
Deputy President Stephen Lieschke ruled that the right to disconnect is fundamentally a right to ignore, and the critical issue was not whether an employer communicated with workers in an unwelcome way, but whether the employer prevented the worker, directly or indirectly, from exercising that right.
While he accepted the unchallenged evidence of the apprentices that the contact was unpleasant and intrusive, he ultimately found the salon boss had not breached the right to disconnect laws.
In Ms Kalleske's case, Deputy President Lieschke wrote that she was not subject to any consequence when she did not respond, and there was no other evidence of Ms McGuire attempting to prevent her from not responding. In his view, these circumstances fell short of the prohibition against directly or indirectly preventing the applicant from disconnecting.
Regarding Ms Elliot, the tribunal found that while Ms McGuire responded with apparent disapproval when her messages were not acknowledged, and this did put some pressure on the apprentice, there was no other consequence from the boss. Deputy President Lieschke accepted that Ms Elliot was discouraged from always disconnecting by the employer's conduct, but could not conclude the applicant was prevented from doing so.
Broader workplace violations found
The right to disconnect claims formed part of a broader case alleging underpayment, denied meal breaks and lack of proper workplace rosters. The tribunal found significant merit in these additional claims.
Ms Elliot, who started at the salon as a 16-year-old in 2024, was routinely denied lunch and rest breaks, often working through them or remaining on call. On approximately 20 occasions, she received no meal break at all, and the tribunal heard she was reprimanded for taking a brief break without permission.
She was regularly pressured to work beyond her rostered 20 hours a week and, if she could not accommodate last-minute changes, would allegedly be ignored for days. Requests for time off in lieu were met with hostility. Ms Elliot was also expected to arrive before her shift to prepare the salon and was responsible for opening and closing duties, often overseeing the business in Ms McGuire's absence.
Ms Kalleske claimed she was regularly left to run the salon for periods of up to a week while her boss was on leave, often outside her agreed hours and without receiving a manager's allowance, weekend penalty rates or overtime pay. Under the Hair and Beauty Award covering most hairdressing apprentices in Australia, pay rates as of July 2026 start at $14.73 per hour for junior apprentices and $23.56 per hour for adult apprentices, with additional penalty rates for weekend and overtime work.
The tribunal heard there were no formal rosters, hours were frequently changed at short notice, and both apprentices were routinely denied meal breaks. When Ms Kalleske tried to raise concerns during her employment, she claimed Ms McGuire was difficult to approach, especially about pay and workplace entitlements, and that complaints were often dismissed or met with defensiveness.
Financial penalties ordered
Deputy President Lieschke ordered Ms McGuire to pay the former apprentices a combined $20,316 in unpaid wages, unpaid superannuation entitlements and interest. The apprentices' evidence was accepted unchallenged after Ms McGuire declined to participate in the proceedings.
A further hearing will determine penalty orders against Ms McGuire, who faces a maximum penalty of up to $198,000 for each serious Fair Work contravention. Under current regulations, employers who contravene a Fair Work Commission order can face penalties of up to $21,840 for individuals and $109,200 for corporations per contravention.
Global context
Australia's right to disconnect laws place it among a growing number of countries addressing work-life balance in the digital age. France became the first country to legislate a right to disconnect in 2017, requiring companies with more than 50 employees to negotiate agreements with their staff about digital communication outside working hours. Other countries including Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland have since implemented similar laws.
The introduction of Australia's legislation was driven in part by research highlighting the extent of unpaid after-hours work. A 2023 study by the Australian Institute found that employees spend on average 5.4 hours per week doing unpaid work after their usual hours, costing workers on average $11,000 per year.
This landmark ruling establishes an important precedent for how right to disconnect laws will be interpreted in Australia, clarifying that while unwelcome after-hours contact may be unpleasant, it does not necessarily constitute a legal breach unless employees are actively prevented from ignoring it.
