A landmark ruling has found a vegan hair salon owner did not breach ‘right to disconnect’ laws for bombarding her apprentices with TikToks and messages after work hours and sulking when they didn’t reply. 

In two separate cases, the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) heard claims that hairdressing apprentices Amelia Elliot and Jessica Kalleske felt pressured to respond to out-of-hours messages from Adelaide Eco Hair Room owner Tanika McGuire. 

Ms Kalleske told the tribunal there was a ‘consistent pattern’ of contact outside working hours, including on days off, while attending trade school and when she was sick or on leave.

‘It appeared that if one staff member did not respond, Ms McGuire would contact others,’ she told the tribunal.

‘This created an ongoing expectation of availability and contributed to stress.’

Ms Kalleske recalled needing urgent medical treatment and asking for privacy after supplying medical certificates, but alleged Ms McGuire continued to repeatedly call and message her.

‘She also attempted to contact my family, including calling my mother, in an effort to obtain information about my condition,’ she told the court.

‘I did not feel comfortable disclosing personal medical information and found this conduct to be an overreach of professional boundaries.’

Eco Hair Room owner Tanika McGuire (pictured) has found herself at the centre of a landmark workplace ruling over employees’ rights to disconnect

Jessica Kalleske (pictured) said there was a ‘consistent pattern’ of contact outside working hours, including on days off, while attending trade school and when she was sick or on leave

Ms Kalleske said attempts to raise concerns with Ms McGuire, including about financial matters such as her pay, were often dismissed or met with defensiveness.

During her own employment tribunal, Ms Elliott gave evidence that Ms McGuire frequently sent her TikTok and Snapchat videos outside work hours, ‘mostly about her social life’, along with messages about non-urgent work matters.

‘If the applicant did not respond before returning to work, the respondent would be in a bad mood and would ignore her,’ the tribunal noted in its summary of facts.

Ms Elliott alleged Ms McGuire once required her to take the salon’s mobile phone home over a long weekend so she could receive work messages. But, Ms Elliott said she did not actively monitor the device while she had it.

Deputy President Stephen Lieschke ruled the right to disconnect is a right to ignore, and the issue was not whether a boss communicated with workers in an unwelcome way, but if the employer prevented the worker, directly or indirectly, from exercising that right.

While he accepted the unchallenged evidence of the apprentices that the contact was ‘unpleasant and intrusive’, he ultimately found the salon boss had not breached the right to disconnect 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,’ he wrote in his published decision. 

‘In my view, these circumstances fall short of the respondent breaching the prohibition against directly or indirectly preventing the applicant from disconnecting.’

The apprentices’ evidence was accepted unchallenged after Ms McGuire (pictured) declined to participate in the proceedings

The right for employees to disconnect from work when not on duty was introduced in 2024. It applied to small businesses from August 2025, granting employees the right to ignore calls, emails and texts from their bosses after hours. 

This includes contact from an employer, colleagues and third parties such as clients and suppliers.

In the case of Ms Elliot, Deputy President Stephen Lieschke found while McGuire responded with ‘apparent disapproval’ at her messages not being liked by a junior employee – and this did put some pressure on the apprentice – there was no other consequence from the boss.

In one isolated incident, she claimed she was required to take the salon mobile phone home over a long weekend to take messages for no payment.

‘(Ms Elliot) was also able to resist the phone monitoring request, apparently without consequence or repetition,’ he wrote in his published decision.

‘I accept (Ms Elliot) was discouraged from always disconnecting by the respondent’s conduct, but I am unable to conclude the applicant was prevented from doing so.’ 

Ms Kalleske and Ms Elliot made the allegations as part of a broader claim that they had been underpaid, denied meal breaks and not provided with workplace rosters.

The tribunal heard Ms Elliot, who started at the salon as a 16-year-old in 2024, was routinely denied lunch and rest breaks, often working through them or remaining on call. 

Eco Hair Room (pictured) has been trading for more than six years from the Aldinga Shopping Centre

The tribunal heard that on about 20 occasions, she received no meal break at all, and Ms Elliot claimed Ms McGuire reprimanded her for taking a brief break without permission.

She told the tribunal she was regularly pressured to work beyond her rostered 20 hours a week and, if she could not accommodate last-minute changes, would be ignored for days. 

Requests for time off in lieu were allegedly met with hostility, the tribunal heard.

Ms Elliot further claimed she was expected to arrive before her shift to prepare the salon for the day and was responsible for opening and closing duties, often overseeing the business in Ms McGuire’s absence.  

Meanwhile, Ms Kalleske claimed she was regularly left to run the salon for periods of up to a week while her boss was on leave, often outside her agreed hours and without receiving a manager’s allowance, weekend penalty rates or overtime pay.

She told the tribunal that negative reactions from Ms McGuire discouraged her from seeking time off in lieu for the extra responsibilities.

Ms Kalleske also alleged to the tribunal there were no formal rosters, her hours were frequently changed at short notice and she was routinely denied meal breaks.

The tribunal heard that when she tried to raise concerns during her employment, Ms Kalleske claimed Ms McGuire was difficult to approach, especially about pay and workplace entitlements.

She also claimed during the tribunal that her complaints were often dismissed or met with defensiveness.

Deputy President Lieschke ordered Ms McGuire to pay the former apprentices a combined $20,316 in unpaid wages, unpaid superannuation entitlements and interest.

The apprentices’ evidence was accepted unchallenged after Ms McGuire declined to participate in the proceedings.

A further hearing will determine penalty orders against Ms McGuire, who faces a maximum penalty of up to $198,000 for each serious Fair Work contravention.

Ms Kalleske declined to comment. The Daily Mail has contacted Ms McGuire for comment.