Right to disconnect: pressure is not prevention, tribunal rules
A South Australian hairdressing salon owner who sent TikTok and Snapchat videos to an apprentice outside work hours did not breach the employee's right to disconnect, a tribunal has ruled.
The South Australian Employment Tribunal handed down the ruling on 19 August, one of two decisions published the same day against Tanika Mcguire, who operates Eco Hair Room at the Aldinga Shopping Centre.
Deputy President Lieschke found that Mcguire had "frequently" contacted the applicant outside of work hours by sending TikTok and Snapchat videos, mostly about her social life, with other messages concerning non-urgent work matters. When the apprentice did not respond, the tribunal heard, Mcguire "would be in a bad mood and would ignore her."
The apprentice also alleged she was required on one occasion to take the salon's mobile phone home over a long weekend to take messages, without pay. She declined to monitor it but agreed to look after it, and was not asked again.
Is it a violation of right to disconnect?
Despite the conduct, the tribunal declined to find a breach of the right to disconnect, a protection introduced into the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2020 in 2024 and extended to small businesses from 26 August 2025.
The right, set out in section 333M of the Fair Work Act 2009, allows employees to "refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact, or attempted contact, from an employer outside of the employee's working hours unless the refusal is unreasonable." Employers are prohibited from directly or indirectly preventing employees from exercising that right.
Lieschke drew a precise legal distinction between pressure and prevention.
"While the employer 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," he wrote.
The tribunal concluded the apprentice "was discouraged from always disconnecting by the respondent's conduct, but... was [not] prevented from doing so."
The same finding was reached in a companion ruling handed down the same day, involving a second apprentice who described "a consistent pattern of contact outside of working hours, including on days off, during trade school, and while unwell or on leave."
Other alleged contraventions
On all other alleged contraventions, the tribunal found against Mcguire in both cases, classifying each as a serious contravention on the basis they were knowingly committed.
Both apprentices were required to work beyond their agreed part-time hours without overtime pay, while their meal and rest breaks were also routinely denied.
Neither was provided with complying rosters, with both workers given little or no notice of shifts despite regulations under the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2020.
Neither worker received their full superannuation entitlements and both were denied timely reimbursement of TAFE fees. Accrued leave was not paid out within the required seven days of either employee's resignation.
In a statement posted to Eco Hair Room's Instagram page, Mcguire said she disagreed with the findings and claimed she had not been contacted by the tribunal and therefore could not defend herself.
However, both judgments record that Mcguire did not appear at either hearing "without explanation."
Mcguire also suggested the two apprentices had corroborated each other's accounts to support their claims, though the tribunal heard the cases separately, with each applicant giving their own unchallenged evidence.
"I am now seeking legal advice regarding my options," Mcguire wrote. "Eco Hair Room has always aimed to provide a positive and supportive workplace. I remain committed to resolving this matter properly through the appropriate legal processes."
