When it comes to work-life balance or the lack of it, and potential burnout, we don’t need notifications from our boss flashing up at 6pm or in the weekend and feel like we have to respond. Can we follow the lead of other countries and embed in law the ‘right to disconnect’? And by doing so, can we please establish it as a social norm?
Visiting Australia a few months ago, I saw a billboard on a busy corner near a public-transport hub that said something about ‘the right to disconnect’. At first I thought it might be about an internet provider; or maybe about having those snuggly evenings with no need for company. But I realised that made no logical sense. Who would be paying to advertise those things on a hoarding? So I looked it up.
Here’s the answer.
In Australia, the ‘right to disconnect’ refers to legislation introduced in 2024 and 2025. It clarifies that employees aren’t expected to monitor, read, answer, respond to or act on out-of-hours contact from their employer, or a work-related third party, unless the refusal is unreasonable. Factors for ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’ weighed include:
•the reason for the contact
•the level of disruption it causes the employee
•the extent to which the employee is compensated to remain available during the period of contact or for working additional hours outside their ordinary hours
•the nature of the employee’s role and their level of responsibility
•the employee’s personal circumstances including family or caring responsibilities
It’s much more about what you don’t have to do rather than what you do have to do. And in Australia, it’s much, much easier to do this when there’s a literal law behind it, when unresolved ‘right to disconnect’ disputes can go to the Fair Work Commission, and when you see posters about having that exact right on posters at public-transport hubs. Ultimately, it’s about normalising and enshrining the right to disconnect so it becomes a social norm and an everyday reality.
Thinking Twice
The existence of a ‘right to disconnect’ naturally causes employers and managers to think twice about or rethink whether they actually need to contact you on any given occasion. It establishes a baseline. A boundary. A boundary between work life and home life. Yes, even if you’re working from home or doing flexible hours.
After all, your boss shouldn’t treat your life and priorities at home as something you can immediately drop to meet their needs or suit their schedule. No one wants to see ‘urgent’ email notifications flashing on their phone outside work hours, when you’re having a glass of vino or playing with your kids. And definitely not when you’re on holiday.
And if you don’t have the right to disconnect – perhaps you have to do extra hours in the evenings as needed, or be on call – that can have a negative effect on your physical and mental health. It could cause sleep problems, burnout or worse.
A Global Movement
The right to disconnect is one of the fastest-moving paths of employment law globally. In fact, 15 countries – yes, that many – have some version of the right to disconnect, even if they don’t use those exact words. They include Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Greece, Kenya, Ontario Canada, and Argentina.
Simon Schofield, who teaches employment law at Auckland Law School, kindly jumped on a Zoom to give me some context on what’s been happening internationally. “The right to disconnect started as a French law. It makes sense because continental Europe generally is more prescriptive in its requirements in relation to labour law or employment law.”
In 2017, France passed legislation that gives employees the legal protection to not read or respond to work communications, emails, phonecalls, SMS messages, Teams or Slack notification or other methods outside their working hours. Known in French as the ‘droit à la déconnexion’, this right creates obligations on employers of 50 or more people: to produce a written charter, define contactable hours in employment contracts, and monitor working time. Failing to comply exposes the company to Labour Court claims and significant back-pay consequences.
Simon says the wording, context and expectations vary from country to country. An article in Employsome says: “the variations matter, however, and the differences are not cosmetic. France imposes binding company-level policy obligations on employers with 50+ staff. Australia’s 2024 framework is enforceable through individual Fair Work Commission claims. Portugal includes employer fines up to €9,690 per violation. Spain ties the right specifically to the LOPDGDD data protection framework and treats after-hours surveillance as a privacy violation. Each jurisdiction frames the right slightly differently, with different enforcement teeth and different employer obligations.”
This movement isn’t going away. The European Union is actually working on having the right to disconnect embedded across all 27 member states, with implementation expected in either 2027 or 2028.
Things really are changing. Some even call the right to disconnect a human right. The right to rest and leisure is found in article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, a recent study endorsed by the International Labour Organization has showed the need for workers to be able to disconnect from technology.
Also, organizational scholars at the International Network on Technology, Work, and Family “call for an effective right to disconnect that would act as a shared safeguard prompting a reformulation of the social value of connectivity and work-life balance”.
And Here?
Does New Zealand need a ‘right to disconnect’? Simon thinks so. “Having that ‘right to disconnect’ serves as a declaratory function to say ‘you have that right’.” As in, you know you have that right.
“By creating a right to disconnect, we would have an open discussion between employers and employees about what is expected because – and social media is part of this – there’s this sort of notification fatigue, right? It was a lot simpler when you only had the landline, and you may be out of the house. But with mobile phones, you’re always available and you’re always on.”
Sure, some of us don’t mind that so much. “I do think, culturally, that New Zealanders generally don’t mind being contacted by their boss occasionally [out of hours]. But there certainly are some employees that do mind, and certainly some employers take advantage of that culture.”
“Some bosses will protect time like there’s no tomorrow. Other bosses are less prepared to safeguard your personal time. But you have a right to life outside of work. A right to disconnect would be useful because it would prevent abuses.”
Should it only apply to extreme cases where bosses are taking advantage? “It absolutely has to apply to those extreme cases. But how do you draw the line between those extreme cases and those ‘not extreme’ cases? The point is that if you give employees the right to disconnect, then some employees will draw a line in the sand. That signals to their employer that there are some issues with workload. If the employee doesn’t want to exercise their right to disconnect, that’s up to them.”
Clean-up
Ideally, Simon says, creating a right to disconnect would clarify New Zealand’s complex web of legal mechanisms in this area.
“It’s better than the mess New Zealand has currently in relation to hours of work. For instance, many other countries have a cap on the number of hours that you can work. We don’t.”
The Minimum Wage Act says employment agreements are to fix at no more than 40 hours a week. “Except employers can contract out of that.”
He explains further. “We do have laws in place which protect employees from working excessive hours.” You can raise an unjustified dismissal or a constructive dismissal claim regarding excessive hours of work.
“The challenge is there’s likely a clause in your contract which says your employment agreement covers all of those extra times when you’re contacted.”
Simon also mentions ‘zero-hour contracts’. As in, you’re employed, and are given no hours of work but must be available. “In 2016, there were a number of amendments to the Employment Relations Act relating to availability that required reasonable compensation for being available. In some ways, that covers the situation of being ‘always on’, always having to be available and check your messages and so forth.”
Protections
Of course, business would probably pooh-pooh a right to disconnect. “I think if you talk to freedom of contract proponents about the right to disconnect, they’d say ‘that’s between the parties’. The problem with that is that imbalance of power. Many employees will do anything to keep their job. That’s why you need a minimum wage. That’s why you need protections around holidays. That’s why you need protections in relation to flexible working. So I think adding the right to disconnect helps employees to say ‘I do have this right’ – and it’s a huge step and entirely consistent with minimum employment standards.”
And no one should have to risk their health. “There’s a whole literature in relation to psychosocial risks at work, and fatigue is a risk. And that takes other forms too. So an employee behaving badly, for instance, can be tied to them doing excessive hours of work.”
“Also burnout is very real and something to be very conscious of.”
And What About NZ?
Simon thinks New Zealand should usher in the ‘right to disconnect’. However, will it actually happen here?
“Well, it’s a bit political. But I think it’s just a matter of time before it happens here. I don’t see it happening tomorrow, but a right to disconnect is certainly a [global] movement, however that is achieved – whether that’s created by the legislature, or the courts pushing back more firmly in respect of excessive hours.”
“In New Zealand, you’d probably create a civil penalty. Not a fine as such, but a penalty, that doesn’t have the criminal element to it like France does.”
“It’s just the direction, right? We tend to adopt what Australia has done. Yes, there are a number of differences between New Zealand law and Australian law in this space, but I don’t think that’s across the board.”
If you like, I’ll ask the government after the election: do we have a right to this right?
__________________________________
About the Author:
