A South Australian hair salon owner has been found not to have breached right to disconnect laws after sending TikToks and Snapchat videos outside of work hours to staff, mostly about her social life.
It’s the first time the right to disconnect has been legally tested, with one employment lawyer predicting we will see more of the cases crop up in the future even if they are “tacked-on” to broader claims.
Tanika McGuire, owner of Eco Hair Room, had the allegations brought against her by two former apprentices as part of broader claims in the South Australian Employment Tribunal that included alleged underpayments.
Deputy President Stephen Lieschke found in both cases the right to disconnect had not been breached.
One apprentice alleged Ms McGuire would frequently contact her outside of work hours by sending TikTok and Snapchat videos, mostly about her social life along with other non-urgent work matters.
If she didn’t respond before returning to work, she claimed Ms McGuire “would be in a bad mood and would ignore her”.
On one occasion, she was also required to take the salon mobile phone home over a long weekend and take messages for no payment. While she took the phone, she said she would not monitor it.
The second apprentice claimed there was a “consistent pattern of contact outside of working hours, including on days off, during trade school, and while unwell or on leave”.
If she didn’t respond, she said Ms McGuire would contact others. She claimed this “created an ongoing expectation of availability and contributed to stress”.
She cited one occasion where she was undergoing urgent medical treatment and Ms McGuire allegedly contacted her “repeatedly via calls and messages” and attempted to contact her family, including her mother, to get information about her condition.
Deputy president Lieschke said the question was whether Ms McGuire had prevented her employees from exercising their right to disconnect.
“The issue is not the same as whether the respondent communicated with the applicant outside of work in an unwelcome manner, or whether the applicant felt pressure to respond,” the deputy president said.
He noted that while Ms McGuire responded with “apparent disapproval at her messages not being liked or responded to by a junior employee, and this did put some pressure on the applicant, there was no other consequence from the respondent”.
The apprentice was also able to resist the phone monitoring request, “apparently without consequence of repetition”.
“I accept the applicant was discouraged from always disconnecting by the respondent’s conduct, but I am unable to conclude the applicant was prevented from doing so,” he said.
‘High bar’ for employers to breach right to disconnect
The right to disconnect came into effect in August 2024 for most employees, and last year in August 2025 for small businesses.
It gives Australian employees the right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact outside their working hours, unless that refusal is unreasonable.
As a workplace right, an employer can’t take adverse action against an employee because of them exercising their right to disconnect. That includes things like being sacked, being demoted or being overlooked for a promotion.
Hart & Co director Roxanne Hart told news.com.au an employer being in a “bad mood” wasn’t enough and there would likely need to be “tangible consequences”.
“Essentially it shows that employees are able to reach out to employees outside of work hours, but essentially what the right is is that an employee can ignore that contact without consequence,” she said.
Ms Hart said there was a “high bar” to prove a breach as the employee would need to show that the employer interfered with their right to disconnect and prevented them from exercising that right.
The Fair Work Act includes a list of factors that will be taken into account to determine whether a refusal to monitor communications is unreasonable.
That includes the reason for the contact, the employee’s role and level of responsibility, the employee’s personal circumstances, how the contact is made and how disruptive it is, and any extra pay the employee gets for working extra hours or being available to work out of hours.
This wasn’t considered in the two cases.
Ms McGuire did not appear in court.
On the other claims, deputy president Lieschke ordered Ms McGuire to pay her two former apprentices a combined $20,316 in unpaid wage entitlements, compensation for unpaid superannuation contributions, and interest.
In a statement posted to Eco Hair Room’s Instagram page regarding the underpayment allegations, Ms McGuire said she disagreed with the findings of the South Australian Employment Tribunal and was seeking legal advice on her options.
More right to disconnect disputes predicted
Ms Hart said she expects the right to disconnect will be included in “kitchen sink type” claims moving forward, rather than as standalone claims.
“It’s rare that somebody’s going to just make an application for a breach of the right to disconnect on its own,” she told news.com.au.
“More likely what happens is an employee makes a claim, say, for example, that they’ve been underpaid and that amounts are owed to them by the employer.
“And then what they will do is tack on every other potential breach of the Fair Work Act at the same time.”
The Fair Work Commission has delayed its review into the operation of the right to disconnect until at least late 2026 until more significant disputes or test cases emerge.
Ms Hart said even though the law had largely been untested, people were still exercising their right to disconnect in the workplace.
“Even though we don’t see it in the Fair Work Commission, there are still some practical benefits of having that law,” she said.
“It may well be that more people are like standing their ground or employees are standing their ground and disconnecting from the workplace because that law has given them the confidence.”
The ACTU also argued last year that the right to disconnect was working well, with working people able to exercise the right.
The union noted the vast majority of employers were respecting the right, which is why there had been low levels of disputes.
Last year, a primary school teacher suing her former employer became the first public legal action to cite the right to disconnect laws as part of a dismissal case.
The teacher alleged she was sacked for not responding to allegations of inappropriate behaviour sent during the school holidays when she wasn’t required to work.
The proceeding is continuing in the federal court.