Right to Disconnect

The right to disconnect is an employee’s right not to monitor, read, or respond to work communication outside working hours. It emerged as a response to smartphones making “off” negotiable, and now exists in a dozen or so countries — in forms that differ far more than the shared name suggests.

A right, or just a policy?

This is the distinction that matters, and most coverage misses it.

Australia created a genuine right. Under the Fair Work Act, an employee may refuse to monitor, read or respond to out-of-hours contact — from the employer or a third party such as a client — unless the refusal is unreasonable. Reasonableness turns on the reason for contact, the employee’s role, their personal circumstances, how disruptive the contact is, and whether they’re paid for availability. Disputes go to the Fair Work Commission, which can issue stop orders, and adverse action against someone exercising the right is prohibited. It applied to employers with 15 or more employees from August 2024 and to small businesses from 26 August 2025.

Ontario created a policy requirement. Employers with 25 or more employees must have a written policy on disconnecting from work — but the ESA does not require that policy to grant any right, and the policy itself generally isn’t enforceable under the Act. You must write a document about disconnecting; you need not permit it.

Both get described as “the right to disconnect.” Only one is.

United States

There is no right to disconnect at the federal or state level. The most prominent attempt, California’s AB 2751, was defeated in 2024.

Out-of-hours work is governed indirectly instead: under the FLSA, non-exempt employees must be paid for time worked, including email answered after hours — a wage-and-hour question rather than a rights question. For exempt staff, nothing applies.

Canada

Federally regulated employers are next. Bill C-69 received royal assent in June 2024 and will require a disconnect policy modelled on Ontario’s — a general rule on out-of-hours communication, any exceptions and their rationale, and an effective date — but no commencement date has been announced.

Ontario is as above: a policy obligation, measured on headcount at 1 January, with the policy in place before 1 March each year. Penalties for not having one start at CAD 250, multiplied by affected employees.

Quebec and British Columbia have no equivalent requirement, nor do the other provinces.

Internationally

France legislated first, in 2017. Employers with 50 or more employees must negotiate the right annually; failing agreement, they adopt a charter. A Cour de cassation ruling of 25 March 2026 narrowed it usefully: spontaneous out-of-hours connection, where the employer demanded no availability, doesn’t breach it.

Portugal goes furthest — a positive duty on the employer to refrain from contacting workers outside hours except in force majeure, enforced as an administrative offence. Belgium requires employers with 20 or more workers to implement the right through a collective agreement or work rules. Spain grounds it in data protection and remote-work law, with fines assessed per work centre. Ireland has only a Workplace Relations Commission code of practice — breaching it isn’t an offence, but it’s admissible in evidence.

There is still no EU directive. Social partner negotiations failed in 2023, and nothing has been tabled since. One date worth noting: Luxembourg’s regulator begins issuing fines from 1 July 2026 for employers without a disconnect regime.

Why it matters for leave

The clearest case is working during booked leave. Annual leave exists to provide rest — which is why UK and EU law won’t let the statutory minimum be sold back — so answering email through a holiday defeats its legal purpose, not just its spirit. It’s also the most visible form of leaveism, and the one a leave system can surface, since the absence is recorded even when the work isn’t.