In light of the recent amendment to the relevant legal framework (Fair Work Act 2009) by the Australian Parliament, regarding the employee’s right to disconnect and the horizontal regulation introducing this measure to all employers and employees across the country, we present below some reflections and concerns on this issue, both from a European and national perspective. What, ultimately, is the situation in our country? How many decades will it take for us to alter our work culture? When will we achieve a proper balance between professional and personal life? Have you observed that an increasing number of employees now avoid social interaction in the workplace? Does an employee truly have an obligation to respond to calls on their personal or professional phone outside of working hours?
According to the Explanatory Memorandum and Compatibility with Human Rights, the objective of this provision is to incorporate the latter into Australia’s National Employment Standards. The provision mandates that employers refrain from contacting employees outside of their working hours or during their leave, unless the reason for communication pertains to an urgent or emergency matter, or involves a measure of good treatment or support for the employee. Otherwise, the employee must receive an availability allowance for a specified period following working hours, during which the employer may contact them. Only in this case does the employee bear the obligation to check, read, and respond to emails, phone calls, or any other form of communication received. Notably, companies with fewer than fifteen employees will see the right to disconnect implemented for their workforce starting in August 2025.
At this point, and in the absence of binding European legislation, we will omit reference to the approach taken by European countries and how they handle the employee’s right to disconnect, focusing instead on domestic law and how it has been primarily affected by the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a 40% increase in remote work.
In particular, the lockdown and the shift to remote work not only introduced but also highlighted long-standing issues concerning employees’ health and safety. During this period, it became evident that the inability to balance professional and personal life is a persistent problem. While the legislature made commendable efforts to address this issue initially with Article 67 of Law 4808/2021, and subsequently with Article 123 of the Greek Labor Code (Presidential Decree 80/2022), the broad interpretation of the latter is unavoidable, as it applies specifically to employees working remotely, rather than to all employees, including those who provide their work physically at their employer’s premises.
Ultimately, would a more comprehensive regulation be necessary? It seems essential to amend Law 4808/2021, taking into account the Greek Labor Code (Presidential Decree 80/2022). Under this framework, work performed beyond the agreed-upon working hours and outside the individual employment contract is rendered in good faith, with the employee entitled to additional compensation for such work, depending on the agreed salary and particular circumstances. The Code also delineates and sets limits on daily work hours, including exceptions when overtime is required to prevent imminent accidents, for urgent temporary tasks, or in cases of emergency to serve public needs, among others.
In any case, and drawing examples from other countries, it would be prudent for the Ministry of Labor to promote the creation of corporate policies, as beyond the legislative framework, corporate initiative is also necessary. A key issue is educating employers, that contacting employees outside of working hours—except in urgent situations—should begin with an email, followed by a text message, and lastly, by a phone call, rather than the reverse. Furthermore, in the corporate cultures of many employers globally, there is a strict practice of avoiding the use of the employee’s personal phone number. Moreover, in many employers’ cultures worldwide, there is a strict avoidance of using the employee’s personal phone number, in contrast to Greek employers, who often provide company devices and numbers primarily to ensure the employee is available 24/7, even when not necessary. Thus, is the employee obligated to answer the employer’s call outside of working hours? The response varies depending on the nature of the employee’s position, the frequency of such behavior, whether other means of communication were attempted, etc.
The stress caused by employers’ mere expectation of employees’ constant availability, 24/7, significantly undermines employees’ productivity and inevitably leads to a form of disengagement, as employees strive to survive in a toxic work environment. In this context, the establishment of an availability allowance, as legislated in Australia, while not necessarily the primary objective of every employee, would likely serve to curb the tendencies of overbearing supervisors or employers. It would also ensure that employees, especially those in the service sector, who work additional hours beyond their regular schedule, are appropriately compensated.
Regrettably, Greek employers require significant education to respect the employees’ right to disconnect, and even more not to relate employees’ availability with their personal characteristics and life choices, such as age, gender, family status, hobbies, and so forth. Finally, it is incumbent upon employees to treat their right to disconnect as a fundamental responsibility and obligation in order to ensure both its practical implementation and the genuine respect of this right by their employers.
Additionally, it’s time for our country to welcome best practices and guidelines as critical tools for improving our work culture.