Your employee still turns up. Their work gets done. They leave on time. But something has changed…
They may no longer volunteer for extra projects. They stop answering emails after hours. They are less enthusiastic in meetings and no longer seem willing to do the little extras they once did.
Is that “quiet quitting”? More importantly, is it actually a performance problem?
For employers, that distinction matters.
An employee pulling back from discretionary effort is not necessarily underperforming. Before starting a performance or disciplinary process, employers should identify what the employee is actually required to do – and what they had simply become accustomed to receiving.
Quiet quitting is not a technical legal concept
“Quiet quitting” is a workplace label, not a category of misconduct under Australian employment law.
It usually describes an employee who continues doing their job, but stops routinely going beyond it.
That might mean:
- no longer checking emails at night;
- declining optional projects;
- leaving at the end of ordinary working hours;
- refusing to routinely absorb work outside their role; or
- doing what is required without volunteering for more.
For an employer, this can feel like a significant drop in performance – particularly if the employee was previously highly engaged.
But the important question is not whether their attitude has changed, it is whether they are still meeting the reasonable requirements of their role.
Before calling it underperformance, ask what the job actually requires
This is where we often see the issue become muddled. An employer may say: “They used to do all of this without being asked.”
That does not necessarily mean the employee is legally or contractually required to continue doing it.
Start with the basics:
- What does the employment contract say?
- What are the employee’s position description and KPIs?
- What hours are they required to work?
- Are the additional tasks reasonably within the scope of their role?
- Have expectations changed without being clearly communicated?
- Is the employee actually failing to perform, or simply no longer volunteering additional effort?
Those are very different situations. If the employee is meeting their genuine performance standards, an employer should be cautious about treating reduced enthusiasm or stronger boundaries as misconduct.
An employee can still be expected to perform properly
None of this means employees can simply decide which parts of their job they want to perform.
Employees are generally expected to perform their contractual duties and comply with lawful and reasonable directions.
If an employee starts missing deadlines, refusing reasonable tasks, failing to meet agreed standards or disregarding lawful management directions, that may become a legitimate performance or conduct issue.
The better approach is to focus on observable performance, rather than the label “quiet quitting”.
For example:
Weak approach: | “Your attitude has changed and you don’t seem committed anymore.” |
Better approach: | “You were required to provide the monthly report by Friday. It has now been late for three consecutive months. We need to understand why and agree on the performance standard going forward.” |
The second approach gives the employee something concrete to respond to and gives the employer a much stronger basis for managing the issue.
Be careful with expectations around extra hours
One common source of tension is an employee who previously worked long hours but now leaves on time. That change can look dramatic.
It does not automatically mean the employee is doing anything wrong.
Under the Fair Work Act, a full-time employee’s maximum weekly hours are generally 38 hours plus reasonable additional hours. Whether additional hours are reasonable depends on factors including workplace needs, health and safety risks, the employee’s personal circumstances, notice and compensation arrangements.
Employers should therefore avoid assuming that an employee can be required to routinely work whatever additional hours the business needs simply because they are salaried.
There is now another issue to consider. Employees also have a statutory right to disconnect, which can allow them to refuse to monitor, read or respond to work-related contact outside their working hours unless that refusal is unreasonable. The circumstances matter, including why contact was made, the level of disruption, the employee’s role and whether they are compensated for availability.
So an employee who stops answering routine emails at 9 pm is not necessarily displaying poor performance.
What if quiet quitting is really a warning sign?
Employers should not ignore a genuine change in behaviour either. Sometimes the employee is technically performing their role, but the change is telling you something useful.
They may be:
- overloaded;
- frustrated about remuneration or progression;
- experiencing conflict with a manager;
- unclear about priorities;
- disengaged from the business;
- dealing with burnout or a health issue; or
- preparing to leave.
That does not mean an employer has to tolerate poor performance.
It does mean that jumping immediately to discipline may miss the real problem. A direct conversation can often tell you far more.
Instead of asking, “Why aren’t you going above and beyond anymore?”, try to understand whether workload, expectations, role clarity or workplace relationships have changed.
Sometimes the answer is a performance process. Sometimes it is clearer management. Sometimes it is a sign that the business has built a role that only works because the employee routinely contributes significantly more than they are actually required to.
That is useful information for an employer too.
When should an employer move to performance management?
Performance management may be appropriate where there is a genuine gap between what the role reasonably requires and what the employee is delivering.
Before starting that process, employers should be able to identify:
- the required standard;
- how the employee is failing to meet it;
- the evidence supporting that concern;
- whether the expectation has been clearly communicated; and
- what reasonable opportunity the employee will have to improve.
Avoid making the process about motivation, personality or whether the employee appears sufficiently enthusiastic – make it about the work.
That distinction becomes particularly important if disciplinary action or dismissal is later considered.
The employer takeaway
Do not manage “quiet quitting”. Manage performance, expectations and behaviour.
If an employee has stopped doing discretionary extras but continues performing their job properly, disciplinary action may create unnecessary legal and workplace risk.
If they are genuinely failing to meet reasonable standards, address the specific failure and manage it through a proper process.
The most useful question for an employer is therefore not: “Is this employee quiet quitting?”
It is: “What are they actually required to do, and are they doing it?”
That is usually where the real employment law issue begins.
How can Prosper Law help?
Prosper Law advises Australian employers on performance management, employment contracts, workplace policies, employee disputes and dismissal risks.
If an employee’s performance or behaviour has changed and you are unsure how to respond, getting advice before commencing a formal process can help you identify the real issue and reduce unnecessary employment law risk.
Contact Prosper Law to speak with an Australian employment lawyer for employers.
(Updated August 2026)
Frequently asked questions
Can I discipline an employee for quiet quitting?
Not simply because you consider them to be “quiet quitting”. You should identify a genuine performance or conduct issue, such as failure to perform required duties or comply with a lawful and reasonable direction, and manage that issue appropriately.
Can employees refuse to work after hours?
Employees may refuse unreasonable additional hours. They may also have a right to refuse unreasonable work-related contact outside their working hours under the right to disconnect provisions. Whether a refusal is reasonable depends on the circumstances.
What if an employee only does what is in their job description?
A position description is relevant but is not always the complete answer. Employment contracts may require employees to perform other lawful and reasonable duties within the scope of their employment. The particular role, contract and direction need to be considered.
Should I performance manage a disengaged employee?
Disengagement alone is not necessarily grounds to claim underperformance. First, identify whether the employee is failing to meet an objective requirement or standard. If they are, a properly structured performance management process may be appropriate.
About the Author
Farrah Motley
Contact an Australian Business Lawyer Today.
Contact us for a free consultation
