After-hours TikToks and the right to disconnect

What an Adelaide salon case means for SA employers

The right to disconnect has now been tested, and the first decisions came from right here in South Australia. The outcome surprised some: the employer did not breach the right to disconnect. But before anyone reads that as a green light for after-hours messaging, the full story is a cautionary tale.

What happened
Two hairdressing apprentices at a salon in Aldinga brought claims against the owner in the South Australian Employment Tribunal (Elliot v Mcguire [2026] SAET 107 and Kalleske v Mcguire [2026] SAET 106).

They described the owner regularly contacting them outside working hours, including:
  • sending TikTok and Snapchat videos, along with some non-urgent work messages;
  • messaging on days off, during trade school, and while they were unwell or on leave; and
  • on one occasion, asking an apprentice to take the salon phone home over a long weekend, unpaid, to monitor messages.
The apprentices said that if they didn’t reply, the owner became upset and ignored them at work.

What the Tribunal decided

The Hair and Beauty Industry Award says an employer must not directly or indirectly prevent an employee from exercising their right to disconnect. The Tribunal accepted that the contact was unreasonable and that the apprentices felt pressure to respond.
But it found the employer did not prevent them from disconnecting:
  • the apprentices did not always reply;
  • the apprentice who was asked to monitor the salon phone refused, and was not asked again; and
  • there was no evidence of any further consequence for not responding.
In short, the conduct discouraged the apprentices from disconnecting, but did not stop them. The right-to-disconnect claims failed.

Why this is not a win for the employer

The salon still lost on almost everything else. The Tribunal found serious contraventions including unpaid overtime, denied meal and rest breaks, non-compliant rosters, inadequate shift notice, superannuation underpayments, delayed TAFE fee reimbursement and late payment of leave.
The owner also did not appear at either hearing, so the apprentices’ evidence went unchallenged.
The after-hours messaging was a symptom of a wider problem: poor workplace practices that ended up in a tribunal.

What this means for SA employers
  • These are early, first-instance decisions. They are persuasive, not binding, and turn on their facts. A different set of facts could lead to a breach.
  • Consequences are the key risk. Reprimanding, disciplining, ignoring or disadvantaging someone for not responding after hours could amount to prevention, or to adverse action because the right to disconnect is a workplace right.
  • “Indirectly” is still untested. A pattern of pressure, especially on junior staff, may be treated more seriously in future cases.
  • Contact itself is not unlawful. Employers can still contact staff out of hours. What matters is the reason, the urgency, and how you respond when staff do not reply.
Practical steps
  1. Set a clear out-of-hours contact protocol. Define what counts as urgent, which channels to use, and whether a reply is expected before the next shift.
  2. Keep social and work channels separate, especially with apprentices and young workers.
  3. Use scheduled send for non-urgent messages so they arrive during work hours.
  4. Train managers that silence after hours is not a performance issue, and must never lead to consequences.
  5. If you need people to be available, pay for it. On-call or availability arrangements should be agreed and compensated.
  6. Get the basics right. Pay, breaks, rosters and super are where the real liability sat in this case.
How Explore Potential can help

Explore Potential can help you draft a right-to-disconnect policy, train your managers, and run a health check on your award compliance, so you are protected before an issue reaches the Tribunal. Contact us for a confidential conversation.
 
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. The decisions referred to are first-instance decisions of the South Australian Employment Tribunal.