A South Australian tribunal has found that a vegan hair salon owner did not breach 'right to disconnect' laws by sending after-hours messages and TikTok videos to her apprentices. The ruling, however, comes as the owner was ordered to pay the former apprentices a combined $20,316 for unpaid wages, superannuation entitlements, and interest.
The case involved two hairdressing apprentices, Amelia Elliot and Jessica Kalleske, who claimed they felt pressured to respond to messages from Adelaide Eco Hair Room owner Tanika McGuire outside of work hours. Ms. Kalleske testified to a "consistent pattern" of contact on days off, during trade school, and even when she was sick or on leave.
"It appeared that if one staff member did not respond, Ms. McGuire would contact others," Ms. Kalleske told the tribunal. "This created an ongoing expectation of availability and contributed to stress." She further alleged that Ms. McGuire repeatedly contacted her and even her family in an attempt to obtain medical information when she was unwell, which she considered an "overreach of professional boundaries."
Ms. Elliot reported receiving frequent TikTok and Snapchat videos from Ms. McGuire, often detailing her social life, alongside work-related messages. The tribunal noted that Ms. McGuire would become "in a bad mood and would ignore her" if messages were not responded to before the apprentice returned to work. Ms. Elliot also claimed she was once required to take the salon's mobile phone home over a long weekend to receive work messages.
Tribunal's Interpretation of Disconnect Laws
Deputy President Stephen Lieschke of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) stated that the 'right to disconnect' is fundamentally a right to ignore communications, and the key issue was whether the employer prevented the employee from exercising that right. While he acknowledged the apprentices' evidence of "unpleasant and intrusive" contact was accepted unchallenged—as Ms. McGuire did not participate in the proceedings—he found that Ms. McGuire had not breached the specific laws.
"(Ms. Kalleske) was not subject to any consequence when she did not respond, and there is no other evidence of (Ms. McGuire) attempting to prevent (Ms. Kalleske) from not responding," Lieschke wrote in his decision. He similarly found that while Ms. Elliot was discouraged from disconnecting by her boss's conduct, she was ultimately not prevented from doing so, citing an instance where Ms. Elliot resisted a phone monitoring request without consequence.
The right for employees to disconnect from work when not on duty was introduced in 2024 and applied to small businesses from August 2025. It grants employees the right to ignore calls, emails, and texts from employers, colleagues, and third parties after hours.
Broader Employment Grievances
The 'right to disconnect' claims were part of larger allegations made by Ms. Kalleske and Ms. Elliot regarding underpayment, denial of meal breaks, and a lack of formal rosters. Ms. Elliot stated she was routinely denied lunch and rest breaks, often working through them or remaining on call. She also claimed she was pressured to work beyond her rostered hours and was ignored for days if she couldn't accommodate last-minute changes. Requests for time off in lieu were allegedly met with hostility.
Ms. Kalleske reported being left to manage the salon for periods of up to a week while Ms. McGuire was on leave, often outside her agreed hours and without receiving appropriate compensation for extra responsibilities. She also alleged that attempts to raise concerns about pay and entitlements were met with defensiveness or dismissal.
Deputy President Lieschke ordered Ms. McGuire to pay the apprentices the combined sum for wages and superannuation. Ms. McGuire faces potential further penalty orders for serious Fair Work contraventions, with maximum penalties up to $198,000 for each offense. Ms. Kalleske declined to comment, and Ms. McGuire has been contacted for comment.