Australia's landmark "Right to Disconnect" became law for larger employers in 2024, and it will be applicable to small businesses from August 26, 2025. Essentially, eligible employees can refuse to monitor or respond to after-hours contact unless refusal is deemed unreasonable. The law doesn't prohibit communication, but it bans retaliation for not engaging after hours. This subtlety implies that your company culture and manager training are crucial, not just your handbook.
The stakes for compliance are concrete: policy text must align with awards and the Act; rosters and escalation trees should define who's truly on-call (and paid for it); ticketing systems need quiet-hours rules; performance criteria can't quietly punish boundary-setting.
How can HR operationalize "reasonable contact" by role archetype (e.g., customer-critical vs. internal support), rather than blanket rules that either fail the business or the employee? Should organizations deploy after-hours contact dashboards for auditability (who pinged whom, how often), and tie manager KPIs to reducing unnecessary evening/weekend contact?
The stakes for compliance are concrete: policy text must align with awards and the Act; rosters and escalation trees should define who's truly on-call (and paid for it); ticketing systems need quiet-hours rules; performance criteria can't quietly punish boundary-setting.
How can HR operationalize "reasonable contact" by role archetype (e.g., customer-critical vs. internal support), rather than blanket rules that either fail the business or the employee? Should organizations deploy after-hours contact dashboards for auditability (who pinged whom, how often), and tie manager KPIs to reducing unnecessary evening/weekend contact?