The Right to Switch Off: Taking the Next Steps to tackle the ‘Always On’ Culture

The ready availability of digital devices, such as laptops and smartphones, means that work can be performed more flexibly. It also means, however, that workers are readily available to organisations for more and more of the time, including outside their normal working hours. This ‘always on’ culture has led other countries to introduce a ‘right to disconnect’ from one’s work. The Government committed to introducing a Right to Switch Off for the first time in the UK. This week, the Government’s paper on the Next Steps on the Plan to Make Work Pay revealed that the right would be introduced by a statutory Code of Practice.

Here, we ask: why do we need a right to switch off in the UK? And what opportunities and pitfalls lie ahead as the Government embarks on the next stage of the journey towards a Right to Switch Off?

Work by Soffia et al (2024) building on the Pissarides Review highlights the tension at the heart of constant digital connectivity to our work. The authors observe that technology has improved some aspects of job quality, such as prospects for advancement or promotion and the ability to influence decisions that are important for one’s work. On the other hand, technology has led to some detrimental impacts, including the frequency of work during unsociable hours. Analysis conducted by Piasna (2024) shows that the use of computerised systems has led to the ‘encroachment of paid work beyond its boundaries’, in addition to longer working hours and poorer work-life balance. The way that we interact with digital devices, that are highly addictive, substantially contributes to this ‘always on’ culture.

The right to disconnect, or the ‘Right to Switch Off’, is key to allowing workers and organisations to benefit from the flexibility enabled by digital technologies, whilst guarding against the risks to workers discussed below. The urgent need for a right to disconnect has been recognised internationally by legislators in France, Spain, Australia, and elsewhere. In other jurisdictions, statutory Codes of Practice have been introduced, including in the Republic of Ireland. In the UK, some employers’ and workers’ representatives have come to agreement on the need to support flexibility and guard against pressures to work longer hours or interrupt rest and personal time. There is a clear need for concerted action on this problem for the benefit of workers and, as we argue below, employers and society at large.

Our research investigates how we can build a strong justification for the right to disconnect, building particularly upon the Australian experience of legislating on this issue (Golding, 2024; Golding & Collins, 2024; Collins & Golding, 2024). We propose four central justifications for introducing a right to disconnect, which support many of the themes of IFOW’s Good Work Charter:

The right supports individuals in exercising autonomy when establishing and maintaining a work/private life boundary according to their own preferences and needs. It ensures that their private time is protected from work-related intrusion, although there must be exceptions to reflect the genuine needs of the organisation or sector of work.
There is evidence of the detrimental impact of overwork driven by an ‘always on’ culture upon the health, safety and wellbeing of workers, in addition to the job quality impacts outlined above. A right to disconnect contributes to the wider pursuit of fair conditions of work by placing a sensible limit on the demands that can be made by an employer of their staff outside their normal working hours.
By supporting workers in maintaining a healthier work-life balance, the right provides circumstances in which work can be performed more sustainably and, importantly, without sacrificing productivity. Indeed, studies show that reducing overall working time (for example, through the introduction of a four-day work week) either maintain or enhance workforce productivity, along with other benefits, such as in relation to recruitment and retention.
A right to disconnect advances equal participation and access to work. By enabling flexibility but protecting against work intensification, work, workplaces, and working patterns can flex around the needs and preferences of various groups in the workforce.

Before entering into Government, and recognising the benefits and challenges outlined here, the Labour Party committed to introducing a ‘right to switch off’ as part of its ‘New Deal for Working People’. As seen in other countries, there are several ways in which such a right might be introduced. In Portugal, there is a duty owed by employers to refrain from contacting employees outside of working hours. A similar approach was suggested by the TUC in their proposed Bill, but received opposition in a survey by the Institute of Directors. Australia has an individual statutory-based right for employees to disconnect, subject to the question of whether it was reasonable in the circumstances for the employee to refuse contact outside normal working hours. We have previously argued that there are significant benefits to the introduction of a statutory right and that an amendment to the Working Time Regulations could be considered for this purpose.

In the Next Steps to Make Work Pay policy report released yesterday, there is a brief mention of the Right to Switch Off. The report makes clear that a legislative right will not be introduced. Instead, ‘[t]he Government will … deliver some reforms through other means, such as taking forward the Right to Switch Off through a statutory Code of Practice.’ This mirrors the decision made in the Republic of Ireland regarding the right to disconnect during the Covid pandemic (for further analysis, see Bell et al, 2021). In the UK, a future Code of Practice would sit alongside others in this field, including those drafted by ACAS relating to Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures or the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the Equality Act 2010 in Employment.

This onwards trajectory for the Right to Switch Off will be a disappointment to some who have supported the creation of a new statutory right. But it is far from the end of the road for the Right to Switch Off. How can momentum on this important right be maintained? What lessons can be carried forward from jurisdictions that have already trodden this path?

There are reasons to support the introduction of a statutory Code of Practice. Such a Code would provide a clear indication to employers, workers and the wider community of the importance of the right to be able to disconnect from professional obligations during non-working time. A Code of Practice would also hold legal authority. The content of a statutory Code of Practice must be taken into account by Employment Tribunals whenever it addresses issues relevant to the dispute before the Tribunal. This role is important in an area, such as this one, where there are ambiguities regarding the operation of the existing rights and responsibilities of staff and employers in relation to the ‘always on’ culture. For example, workers are already guaranteed rest breaks away from work over the course of a day and a week. But should a small amount of work – for example responding to one email or a five minute call from a client – restart the clock? The law here also struggles to deal appropriately with situations where workers make themselves available for work (perhaps by checking their devices outside working hours) but are away from their place of work. A Code of Practice could seek to resolve these ambiguities and provide clear authority on this point.

By opting for a statutory Code, the Government has also created space and time for the relevant statutory body to engage thoroughly with a variety of stakeholders and expertise. This approach enables genuine participation in the development of policy and principles in this area, aligning with the wider emphasis on bringing businesses and workers’ representatives together to discuss the future of workplace rights that we have seen so far. As Collins has argued (2024), a social partnership approach - whereby dialogue and agreement between workers’ and employers’ representatives is supported by the government - has particular benefits in a context that is fast-moving, as with the effects of technology in the workplace. First, any resultant Code of Practice can be updated in response to developments in technology as they are experienced. Second, effective social partnership ensures that the Code’s content will be workable in practice whilst ensuring that workers’ rights will be respected in the future.

Whilst the Next Steps outlined by the Government present these significant opportunities, we must also consider how to guard against potential drawbacks of adopting only a Code of Practice. First, how the Code will be enforced effectively must be addressed. If a new right is not to be introduced via statute, a connection to an existing legal right and remedial framework must be created. Such a connection has been made very effectively between the ACAS Code of Practice and the remedies of the law of unfair dismissal. A similar model should be adopted, particularly in the light of the Government’s commitment to improve enforcement of rights at work.

Second, the core content of the right should be widely available and strongly stated. The Code of Practice issued by the Workplace Relations Commission in Ireland, for example, sets out:

The right of an employee to not routinely perform work outside normal working hours.
The right to not be penalised for refusing to attend to work matters outside of normal working hours.
The duty to respect another person’s right to disconnect.

In contrast to this wording, we would propose that a Code of Practice cover employment of all ‘workers’, particularly in light of the forthcoming consultation on implementing a single ‘worker’ status. In addition, the justifications for requiring service outside of an individual’s working time must be carefully and narrowly defined. Where performance of work is required outside of normal working hours, this should only be in response to a genuine and pressing need of the employer. Here, due regard must be paid to the impact of any requirement upon the worker and their right to enjoy their private and family life.

Finally, ongoing negotiation and agreement between workers’ and employers’ representatives should be encouraged by a future Code of Practice. Experience from Australia shows that it is essential that the right can be tailored to operate effectively in a particular organisation or sector. We might consider how the right would best operate in relation to a workplace with a 24-hour shift pattern or where a company operates across time zones as just two examples where further specification would be useful. Discussion at the more local level would also permit consideration of how technology can be used to enable workers to switch off, through for instance introducing practices around delayed sending of emails or only distributing messages during core working hours.

To conclude, the Right to Switch off is essential to ensuring that people experience Good Work and begin a shift away from the ‘always on’ workplace culture. The Government’s continued commitment to this important right should be welcomed, along with its specification of clear next steps. A route forward via an authoritative statutory Code of Practice has some potential pitfalls that must be avoided. This route does, however, also allow for more detailed engagement with the views of a wide range of interested parties and presents an opportunity to achieve clarity on some complex legal issues.

About the authors

Philippa Collins is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol and co-Director of its Centre for Law at Work. She is also a Research Fellow of the Institute for the Future of Work. Philippa is a leading scholar on employment law, human rights, and the integration of technology in the workplace.

Gabrielle Golding is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Adelaide. She is an internationally recognised researcher and commentator on employment and contract law and an expert on the right to disconnect.