Kevin Marshall
November 30, 2018
Workers’ off-duty activities could get them fired.
Employees are often under the mistaken impression that anything that happens outside the workplace has no bearing on their employment status.
“Employers can fire employees for virtually any reason they like, so they are susceptible.” “If you do something that may bring the employer’s name into disrepute by having their business associated with you, it could result in termination — even though you weren’t doing it in the name of the company.”
For example, a man was recently fired from his job for endorsing vulgarities that were yelled at a sports reporter during a live broadcast at a soccer game.
Another man ran into trouble at a sporting event when he threw a beer can on the field during a crucial Blue Jays baseball game — an action that also cost him his job.
“It’s going to be a judgment call for the business, but employees need to be aware of the possibility that they can be fired, especially in today’s media-saturated market where news is transmitted very efficiently.” “There is so little privacy these days that it’s easier than ever for their activities to be publicized and put them at risk of sanction by an employer.”
He says some off-duty actions may be so damaging to an employer’s reputation that they will allege termination with cause, eliminating their need to pay out statutory and common law entitlements that would otherwise be due.
But in many cases, Marshall says businesses opt to minimize the chance of litigation by coming up with a termination package that provides the dismissed worker with a payment in lieu of notice.
“Employers are going to weigh the bad public relations against the value of the employee, and often they will err on the side of firing, even if an investigation is not complete.” “You might get a package, but you’re almost certainly not going to be able to reverse the termination.”
Police forces across the country could be on course for a fight over their employers’ role in their personal lives, since, as the Globe and Mail reports, a number are gravitating towards policies that effectively ban or severely limit cannabis use off-duty.
According to the Globe, both the RCMP and the Toronto Police Service are considering a rule that would prevent officers from using cannabis within 28 days of a shift.
Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, told the newspaper it makes little sense to treat the drug differently from other legal potentially impairing products, such as alcohol and prescription drugs.
“Effectively what they’re saying is, we don’t trust police officers to make the right decision when it comes to reporting for work fit for duty,” Stamatakis told the Globe. “And I just find that to be an offensive approach.”
I am inclined to believe alcohol policies are a good guide for employers’ approach to cannabis and says litigation is likely in the police cases.
“Employers are able to test employees to make sure they’re not drunk on the job in certain circumstance, but it usually only applies if the job involves public safety.”
“It comes down to a question of what’s reasonable.”
