Right to Disconnect by Country: An Employer's Guide

If you employ people in more than one country, this has probably already reached you through a contract review or a works council question. The concept is straightforward and the implementation varies a great deal.

What the right actually is

A right to disconnect is the right of an employee not to engage with work communications outside their working hours, and not to be disadvantaged for exercising it.

Note what it usually is not. In most jurisdictions it does not prohibit an employer from sending a message in the evening. It protects the employee from any consequence of not responding to one. That distinction matters for policy writing, and it is the part most commonly misread.

The obligation is also typically procedural. The law requires a negotiated agreement, or a written policy, or consultation. It rarely specifies hours.

Where it exists

Jurisdiction	Shape of the obligation
France	The longest established regime. Employers above a size threshold must negotiate arrangements with the works council or union bodies, or set out a policy where no agreement is reached.
Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy	Each has provisions, with differing triggers and scope. Several attach to remote working arrangements specifically.
Ireland	A statutory code of practice rather than a standalone right. Not directly enforceable on its own, and admissible in related proceedings.
Australia	A right for employees to refuse unreasonable contact outside working hours, with a defined reasonableness test and a dispute route.
United States	No enacted federal or state right as of 2026. See below.

The table is a map, not a compliance answer. The thresholds, the definition of working hours, and what counts as a penalty all vary, and several of these regimes have been amended since introduction. Take local advice for each country you employ in.

The United States position

There is no enacted federal right to disconnect, and no state has one in force as of 2026. The most prominent attempt was California's AB 2751, introduced in 2024, which did not advance out of committee.

For a US employer this means the question is cultural and commercial rather than legal. It is still worth having a written position, for three reasons: it affects retention, it is frequently asked about by candidates, and if you employ anyone in Europe or Australia you will need one anyway.

Treating the US as forward looking rather than regulated is the honest framing. Legislative interest exists and nothing is in force.

What it asks of an employer

Where a regime applies, the practical steps are usually similar.

• Define working hours per employee, in writing, and keep it current. Most obligations hinge on this definition existing.
• State that no reply is expected outside them, and that no consequence follows from not replying. This is the substance of the right.
• Define the genuine exception narrowly: what constitutes urgency, who may be contacted, and by what route.
• Consult where required. Several regimes require negotiation with a works council or union body rather than a unilateral policy.
• Apply it to managers. A policy contradicted by leadership behaviour is evidence of the practice rather than the policy.

A one page version that covers most of this is in the after hours communication policy.

Compliance and the actual problem

A compliant policy does not, on its own, change what happens at 21:00.

People answer in the evening because a colleague is stuck and they are the only one who can help. That remains true after the policy is signed. The most conscientious person on the team keeps replying, and the company is both compliant and unchanged.

So the operational work is to remove the need. This is what StandIn is built for. At the end of the day each person spends about ninety seconds on a brief: what moved, what is open, what is blocked, what is next, mostly drafted from the work that already happened. In the evening, their StandIn answers colleagues from that brief, in their words, with a source under every answer. It never guesses, and when the answer is not in the record it says so and names who to ask. The colleague is not blocked, so nobody has to choose between the policy and being helpful. See how it works and the right to disconnect on a distributed team.

Common Questions

Does this apply to a small company?

Several regimes have size thresholds and several do not. Australia's arrangements phased in for smaller employers after larger ones. Check the threshold for each country you employ in rather than assuming small means exempt.

What about employees in a different country from the entity?

Local employment law generally follows the employee, not the entity, which is why companies hiring through an employer of record still inherit these obligations. Ask the provider what their policy says, because it becomes yours in practice.

Can we contract out of it?

Generally not where the right is statutory. Some regimes allow collectively agreed variations. This is exactly the point at which to take advice rather than draft.

How does this interact with on call arrangements?

On call is usually treated separately, as compensated availability, and is typically permitted where it is agreed and paid. The rule of thumb is that genuine on call is a defined and compensated arrangement, not an informal expectation that someone stays reachable.