Martin v Cairns Steiner School: First Federal Court Case Alleging Adverse Action for Exercising the Right to Disconnect

Martin v Cairns Steiner School: First Federal Court Case
Alleging Adverse Action for Exercising the Right to Disconnect

When is after-hours contact “unreasonable”, and when do child safety duties override thenright to disconnect?

Schools now face the challenge of balancing teachers’ right to disconnect with pastoral care duties, parental expectations and mandatory child safety obligations.

The recently filed Federal Court case of Martin v Cairns Rudolf Steiner School Ltd (the Martin case) highlights the rising legal risks schools face when disciplinary or administrative processes require teachers to engage during periods of leave or outside normal hours. Further information provided by School News can be found here.

The right to disconnect laws were introduced in July 2024 by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cth).This article outlines how the Fair Work Act applies to the education sector, and what schools should do next.

Background

Ms Martin alleges she exercised workplace rights by reporting a reportable child protection suspicion, raising concerns about a contractor engaged by the school, and lodging a grievance with the Teachers’ Professional Association of Queensland. She later took personal leave due to stress and was directed by the school to undergo an independent medical assessment and remain on paid leave. The medical report recommended avoiding discussions likely to exacerbate her stress, including potential disciplinary or legal consequences.

Despite this, during the school holiday period the school issued Ms Martin with a letter outlining six allegations and requiring a response within non-term weeks. Ms Martin sought an extension, relying on medical advice, the statutory right to disconnect, and award provisions requiring teachers to be on leave during non-term periods. The school refused to extend the deadline beyond the holidays, substantiated the allegations, and terminated Ms. Martin’s employment shortly thereafter.

Understanding the “Unreasonable Contact” Test for Teachers

The right to disconnect does not ban all after-hours contact; instead, it prevents employers from requiring employees to monitor or respond to work communications when doing so would be unreasonable. In determining what is “unreasonable”, the Act requires consideration of several factors, including the reason for the contact, the way the contact is made, the level of disruption to the employee, the employee’s role, responsibilities and remuneration, the employee’s personal circumstances, and whether the employee receivesany additional payment for being available outside ordinary hours.

Teachers are unique because their pastoral care duties often extend beyond academic hours, parental expectations commonly spill into evenings and weekends, urgent student welfare matters can arise unpredictably, and many undertake significant unpaid out-of-hours work, with some studies suggesting up to 280 hours of unpaid overtime per year. The Fair Work Ombudsman has also noted in its guidance that the reasonableness test is context- specific, and in the education sector, that context matters.

Examples of reasonable after-hours contact:

• Emergencies during school camps;
• A critical student safety issue;
• Urgent directions relating to imminent school risks;
• Notifying teachers of next-day timetable changes that cannot be delayed;
• Accessing a teacher on call or receiving an allowance for availability.

Examples of unreasonable after-hours contact

• Routine emails from leadership on weekends;
• Non-urgent parent messages late at night;
• Contact during a teacher’s approved personal leave;
• Directions to complete paperwork during school holidays;
• Administrative matters that can be delivered during work hours

Thus, this is where the current debate intensifies, especially in light of pastoral care
expectations and the growth of 24/7 digital communication from families.

When Child Safety Duties Override the Right to Disconnect

All Australian jurisdictions impose mandatory reporting duties under child protection
legislation, and most impose reportable conduct obligations on schools.

Teachers cannot rely on “disconnection” to delay mandatory reporting. Schools must educate staff on this distinction, so they do not inadvertently breach legal duties.

These legal duties override the right to disconnect because:

• Child safety laws impose non-discretionary reporting timeframes;
• Failure to report may constitute a criminal offence;
• Organisations have non-delegable duties of care;
  Situations where teachers must respond after hours:
• A disclosure of sexual abuse or significant harm
• A reportable student-on-student incident
• A critical incident (e.g., missing child, serious injury, safety threat)
• Information requiring immediate reporting to Police or Child Protection

Calls for Sector-Specific Standards: Independent Schools Association Position

The Independent Schools Association, along with several other peak bodies, has publicly argued that teachers should be subject to different standards under the right to disconnect due to the inherent pastoral nature of teaching, the expectation of communicating with parents outside bell times, extensive co-curricular and supervision duties, and the need to maintain trust and continuity of care for students.

These organisations have suggested an education-specific code or modification, noting that existing teacher workloads and after-hours demands make strict application of the right to disconnect difficult.

As of now, no legislative amendments have been announced, but peak body submissions may influence future regulatory guidance or case law.

The FWC Dispute Resolution Process and Emerging Case Law

Employees may lodge a dispute with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) if they believe they were penalised for not responding to after-hours communications, subjected to unreasonable directions, required to engage in disciplinary processes outside ordinary working hours, or exposed to adverse action connected with the exercise of the right to disconnect.

What the FWC can do

Under the Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission can deal with right to disconnect disputes by facilitating conciliation, issuing binding orders, directing employers to cease unreasonable contact, and making orders to protect employees from adverse consequences.

Emerging trend: increased reliance in general protections claims

The Martin case is the first publicly reported example of an employee alleging that an
employer refused a reasonable attempt to disconnect and pursued disciplinary action during leave or non-term weeks. The proceeding is expected to clarify how “unreasonableness” will be interpreted for teachers, how the Fair Work Commission and the Courts reconcile duty-of- care obligations with after-hours boundaries, and whether school holiday periods are afforded protection from employer demands.

While the Federal Court has yet to determine these issues, schools should expect greater scrutiny of after-hours communication and disciplinary timelines.

What this Means for Educational Organisations

Employers should ensure disciplinary processes respect employees’ leave periods and the statutory right to disconnect, carefully document decision-making to meet the reverse onus of proof, take medical recommendations seriously where stress or psychological risk has been identified, and regularly review the right to disconnect policies and internal practices to reduce exposure to general protections claims.

Implementation Best Practices for Schools

• Create a teacher-specific right to disconnect policy: Schools should implement a
  teacher-specific right to disconnect policy that clearly distinguishes between reasonable and unreasonable after-hours contact, sets out processes for urgent child safety matters, establishes expectations around parent communication, provides guidance for leadership on contacting staff during leave, and includes protections for teachers during school holidays and periods of personal leave;
• Train staff on mandatory reporting exceptions: Teachers must be trained to understand when the right to disconnect does not apply, including what child safety matters cannot wait, how to escalate critical concerns, and when mandatory reporting and duty-of-care obligations require immediate action despite non-working hours.
• Set parent communication guidelines: Many schools are introducing clear parent communication protocols, including response timeframes during school days, boundaries around after-hours expectations, automated responses indicating teacher availability, and education for parents about appropriate and reasonable contact with staff;
• Review disciplinary processes: Disciplinary procedures should be carefully
  reviewed to avoid issuing allegations during school holidays, imposing response
  deadlines while teachers are on leave, or requiring engagement during periods
  where medical evidence supports reduced capacity or disengagement from work;
• Audit workloads and unpaid overtime: Given reports suggesting teachers perform up to 280 hours of unpaid overtime each year, schools should audit workloads, monitor expectations around digital communication, assess whether availability allowances apply, and consider rostering or duty systems for genuinely urgent after-hours matters;
• Prepare for disputes: Schools should prepare for potential right to disconnect
  disputes by ensuring leadership is trained on the new laws, maintaining clear and
  contemporaneous records of decision-making, demonstrating reasonable conduct in communications, and seeking legal advice early where disciplinary action coincides with leave, medical treatment, or disengagement rights.
  As the right to disconnect continues to evolve, particularly in the education sector, many schools are finding that early guidance and careful planning can help navigate these competing obligations with greater confidence and reduced legal risk.

How Can Safe Space Legal Help?

Safe Space Legal has extensive experience working with schools and education providers to assist them in meeting their legal obligations. This includes navigating the practical and legal complexities of the right to disconnect when balanced with child safety concerns. Our services include:

• Policy development – Drafting teacher-specific right to disconnect policies and
  parent communication guidelines tailored to your school context.
• Training and awareness – Providing staff guidance on mandatory reporting, child safety obligations, and after-hours communication boundaries.
• Disciplinary process review – Advising on fair and compliant procedures to reduce legal risk during leave, school holidays, or periods of medical treatment.
• Risk management – Auditing workloads, unpaid overtime, and communication
  practices to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act and mitigate potential
  disputes.
• Legal advice and dispute resolution – Offering guidance on emerging case law, supporting schools in Fair Work Commission matters, and helping prepare for or respond to employee claims.

Do you need assistance to balance teacher wellbeing, compliance, and child safety while reducing legal risk? Contact us at office@safespacelegal.com.au or call (03) 9124 7321 for a complementary discussion.