Source: https://www.employmentlawtoday.com/article/20699-off-duty-conduct-related-to-employer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:51:35+00:00

Document:
Question: How much does an employee’s conduct away from the workplace, but related to the employer (such as playing on a company-sponsored team), fall under the employer’s jurisdiction? Can an employer discipline the employee or be liable for any misconduct in such circumstances?
Answer: It is generally recognized that an employee’s “off-duty” conduct can attract discipline where the conduct interferes with and prejudices the employer’s business interests and operations, or its public reputation.
There are a number of cases where summary dismissal was found justifiable for off-duty conduct.
We know the “workplace” may extend to company-sponsored or supported social events held during non-working hours. Employer codes of conduct often address that. In such circumstances, an employee’s off-duty conduct which is employer-related can justify discharge more easily than “true” off-duty conduct.
An interesting 1981 decision involved an employer-sponsored hockey tournament. As it turned out, the off-duty conduct, although having an impact on the employer, was not sufficient to uphold the discharge.
In Harris v. Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Ltd., a 30-year-old employee claimed wrongful dismissal because of incidents that occurred during his off-duty time. Eastern Provincial employees organized a hockey tournament with teams and guests invited from several other operations of Eastern Provincial.
What is the best way to protect an employer’s public reputation or business interests in these cases? In some cases, such as Kelly v. Linamar, no policy would be required to uphold termination if the employer is able to show that the employee’s activity could harm its public reputation or business interests.
Generally speaking, a policy setting forth what is expected of employees at company-sponsored events, or a code of conduct that clearly spells out expectations and disciplinary consequences, may help to deter improper behaviour or — if improper behaviour occurs — will provide some force to the disciplinary response.
• Comet Transport Ltd. (June 13, 2003), BC EST # RD192/03 (B.C. Emp.
• Laakso v. Valspar Inc., 1990 CarswellOnt 781 (Ont. Div. Ct.).
• Farber v. Royal Trust Co., 1996 CarswellQue 1158 (S.C.C.).
• Kelly v. Linamar Corp., 2005 CarswellOnt 6611 (Ont. S.C.J.).
• Harris v. Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Ltd., 1981 CarswellNfld 164 (Nfld. T.D.).
Brian Johnston is a partner with Stewart McKelvey in Halifax. He can be reached at (902) 420-3374 or bjohnston@stewartmckelvey.com.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.