Conference Agenda

In recent decades, work has intensified for many people across high-income countries alongside steady economic growth. Empirical evidence reveals that employees are putting forth greater effort but with less voice in workplace decision-making regarding issues that affect their work and broader life. The proliferation of digital technologies in the workplace has contributed to this phenomenon, in large part because they have created new production opportunities for firms that allow for ‘location independent’ work, otherwise referred to as ‘telework’. On the one hand, these flexible working conditions can boost employees’ wellbeing by granting them more choice over when, where, and how much they work, but on the other hand, they can harm wellbeing by intensifying work demands. Since telework blurs the boundaries between one’s work and personal life, employees with limited voice are more susceptible to working everywhere and all the time to meet unsustainable employer expectations and evolving cultural norms around digital connectivity.

These circumstances have motivated several governments to implement the right-to-disconnect (R2D) legislation to support employee wellbeing by recognizing their right to ignore digital work-related communications outside of working hours. Surprisingly, we know very little about the impact of these laws since empirical evaluations are greatly limited. In theory, they should improve employees’ wellbeing, but in practice, their flexible application makes this outcome highly uncertain. Resolving this debate is timely considering the rise in telework spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated digital infrastructure across all sectors, as well as the European Commission's forthcoming directive for this right.

In this article I seek to answer whether the R2D legislation improves employee wellbeing for those in ‘teleworkable’ occupations across Europe. Utilizing data from the European Social Survey from 2010 to 2020, I estimate the total average treatment effect of the R2D legislation on three domains of employee wellbeing – life satisfaction, happiness, and health – using a staggered treatment timing doubly robust difference-in-difference model. This model is superior in this research context because it allows me to explore the variance in employee wellbeing outcomes across treated European countries and over time. I test total working time and flexibility as potential mechanisms since these are argued to be intermediate objectives of the law in policy discourse. Lastly, I explore employee voice as a moderator between the R2D and employee wellbeing since implementation of R2D terms at the firm-level largely hinges on negotiations with trade unions and employee representatives.

Introduction

The rapid advancement of digital technology has significantly reshaped work dynamics, blurring the boundaries between professional and personal life. The increasing reliance on digital communication tools has led to an "always-on" culture, complicating work-life balance and negatively affecting employee well-being. In response, the concept of the "right to disconnect" has emerged globally, advocating for employees’ legal protection from work-related communications outside of working hours. While some countries have codified this right, many jurisdictions lack explicit legal frameworks addressing the issue. This paper examines the necessity of codifying the right to disconnect, exploring its impact on employment relations, worker well-being in an increasingly digitalised work environment.

Research Questions

1. How can the right to disconnect be legally enforced in an increasingly digitalised work environment?

2. What impact does the right to disconnect have on employment relations and workers’ well-being?

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative research approach, using comparative legal analysis, case law reviews, and policy assessments from countries that have implemented right-to-disconnect laws, such as France, Chile, and Italy. Secondary data sources, including legal texts, academic literature, and policy documents, provide insights into the legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and practical implications of this right. The study also analyses existing labour laws and assesses whether they adequately address the challenges posed by digital connectivity in modern work environments.

Contribution to Literature

This paper contributes to the literature by examining the intersection of work-life balance, burnout, mental health, employee productivity, and digital labour rights in the post-pandemic workplace. It explores the role of trade unions, policymakers, and labour organisations in advocating for the right to disconnect and assesses potential legal models for implementation in different jurisdictions. Additionally, it provides a comparative perspective on digital labour protections, highlighting challenges and best practices in different legal systems.

Findings

The findings reveal that legislative recognition of the right to disconnect can promote healthier workplaces, improve job satisfaction, and reduce work-related stress. However, challenges persist, including balancing business efficiency with worker rights, addressing employer concerns about client expectations, and ensuring effective enforcement mechanisms. The study also identifies potential shifts in power dynamics between employers and employees, as well as the broader implications for labour relations in an increasingly digitalised economy.

The paper concludes with recommendations for policymakers, employers, and labour organisations on implementing right-to-disconnect policies that safeguard employee well-being while maintaining organisational effectiveness.

The digitalisation of work has intensified the expectation of constant availability, blurring the boundaries between professional and private life. In response, the right to disconnect has gained increasing recognition as a means to protect workers from excessive working hours and digital burnout. However, the regulation of this right varies across jurisdictions, raising questions about the appropriate balance between legislative intervention and workplace-level policies.

This study addresses the following key questions: (1) What elements of the right to disconnect should be regulated by law, and what should be left to workplace agreements? (2) What challenges arise in implementing and enforcing the right to disconnect across diverse work environments? (3) How can an EU directive effectively ensure protection for different categories of workers, including those in flexible employment?

The research adopts a comparative legal analysis, examining national regulations on the right to disconnect, focusing primarily on European countries such as Spain, France, and Germany. It also evaluates EU-level initiatives and assesses their potential impact. Additionally, the study incorporates insights from case law and collective agreements to identify best practices and challenges in enforcement.

While existing literature has explored the emergence of the right to disconnect, this study contributes by proposing a structured regulatory model that balances minimum legal protections with workplace-level flexibility. It also addresses the specific challenges of extending this right to workers in non-standard employment relationships, an area that remains underexplored.

The analysis suggests that an EU directive should establish core principles, including explicit protection against adverse treatment for exercising the right to disconnect, mandatory employer policies on digital communication, and sector-specific adaptations. However, effective implementation requires workplace-level negotiation, allowing companies to tailor policies to operational needs while ensuring compliance. Moreover, enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened, particularly for vulnerable workers, to prevent the right to disconnect from becoming a purely symbolic measure.

Portugal introduced the right to disconnect into its legal framework for the first time through Law No. 83/2021, published on 6 December 2021. This law modified the telework regime and created the right to disconnect for workers, coming into force on 1 January 2022. This legal framework remains in effect and has had significant media impact. In fact, even comedian Trevor Noah used this new regime for a satirical segment on The Daily Show in November 2021. This humorous segment labelled the Portuguese legislator as a "gangster". In reality, the instituted regime did not implement a right to disconnect, but rather a duty for employers to refrain from contacting employees after working hours.

Thus, what seemed to be one of the most aggressive regimes to ensure the right to disconnect has now been in force for almost four years. The promised "gangster" impact did not achieve the intended effects. Indeed, some deficiencies in legislative technique have led to serious practical and conceptual problems.

In this context, the present work aims to analyse the effectiveness of the measures implemented by the Portuguese legislator and suggest changes that could increase their practical applicability. Through this approach, supported by an empirical methodology, it aims to identify the strengths of the legislative proposal, but above all, to identify its inconsistencies in order to eliminate all errors.

Implementing the right to disconnect in Portugal can foster a healthier and more sustainable work environment, especially in an increasingly digitalized world. The quality of the legislative process is fundamental. Only in this way is it possible to protect workers' rights, improve quality of life, and productivity in the workplace, as the rules must be equally clear and effective for employers.

Introduction: The global rise of remote work and digital communication technologies has intensified debates surrounding the protection of workers’ ‘right to disconnect’ (RtD) – the capacity to disengage from work-related tasks and communications outside of formal working hours. While countries such as France and Australia have developed institutional frameworks for RtD, China’s legislation is lagging behind. It was not until 2024 that the Supreme People’s Court of China highlighted a landmark judgement as one of the ‘Top 10 Cases in Promoting the Rule of Law in 2023’, which recognised ‘invisible overtime’ via WeChat beyond working hours. This paper examines China’s judicial decisions and legislative challenges regarding RtD, and draws inspiration from international models to propose suggestions for improving China’s labour laws.

Research questions: What is the rationale for China’s judicial decisions on RtD? Do China’s existing labour laws address the protection of RtD, and if not, what are the institutional barriers? Whether China can draw inspiration from international RtD institutional frameworks, and if so, what improvements can be made?

Methodology: This paper uses doctrinal analysis to examine China’s legislation relating to RtD and to analyse the rationale behind China’s judicial decisions relating to invisible overtime and RtD. This paper also adopts a comparative approach to compare the legal practice of RtD in China, France, and Australia to explore the possibility of improving the legislation in China.

Contribution to literature and findings: First, this paper systematically reviews the legal status of RtD protection in China and court decisions to fill this research gap in English literature. Second, this paper compares the similarities and differences in RtD legislative practices between China, France, and Australia, which provides experience and inspiration for legislative reforms in China. This paper finds that China’s response to the issue of invisible overtime arising from the digital working pattern is inadequate and fails to effectively protect employees’ RtD. Specifically, the current labour laws are unclear about the boundary between work and non-work hours, resulting in a lack of legal constraints on enterprises when using communication tools to assign non-working hour tasks. Moreover, there are no explicit criteria for determining invisible overtime in China, relying on the judge’s discretion. The paper also finds that China needs to legislate RtD to make it legally binding, which could be done through judicial interpretations.