Misconduct MC Off-the-Job Conduct This section relates to discharges due to the claimant's conduct away from the employer's premises and during off-duty hours, or actions not related to the claimant's job, or activities prior to the claimant's working for the employer. General Rule Under Section of the UI Code, an individual may not be disqualified for misconduct unless it can be shown that the misconduct is connected with his or her work. When a claimant is discharged for an activity away from the employer's premises and during off-duty hours, and not related to his or her job, the first consideration is whether the discharge is in connection with the claimant's work. As discussed below, an individual's off-the-job conduct could be considered connected with his or her work and could be misconduct.
General Rule Under Section of the UI Code, an individual may not be disqualified for misconduct unless it can be shown that the misconduct is connected with his or her work. Title 22, Section b 1 provides: However, there are off-the-job situations where the interests of an employer are either injured or tend to be injured by the conduct of an employee during these off-duty periods, usually involving illegal or criminal activity.
Generally, what an employee does during off-duty hours is of no concern to the employer. Subsequently he was discharged by the federal service on the ground of serious misconduct while off-duty.
The Board found the claimant eligible and stated: Accordingly we find that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with his ork.
Example Off the job behavior Off-Duty Gambling: The claimant had been warned on many occasions to cease such practice as it was in violation of company rules. He obtained a leave of absence for one week to take care of certain domestic and personal responsibilities.
During the last few days of the leave, the claimant engaged in gambling activities. Example - Off-Duty Drinking: The claimant had only a third grade education.
He had a history of reporting to work under the influence of alcohol and in no condition to perform his job, and was discharged for this reason.
The claimant testified that he did not understand the import of the agreement. He believed the agreement provided that he should refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while on duty and should not report to work under the influence of alcohol. After his release, the employer held a conference with the claimant to ascertain the reason for his incarceration.
During the conference, the employer asked the claimant if he had drunk any alcoholic beverages since signing the agreement.
The claimant told the employer that during his off-duty hours he had on occasion had a beer. He was then discharged not because he was incarcerated but because he had violated the agreement.
The claimant did not understand that the agreement was to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages at all times. He was discharged because he admitted drinking an occasional beer off the job. After signing the agreement, the claimant did not report for work under the influence of alcohol nor did he report with the odor of alcohol on his breath.
The discharge would not be for misconduct. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule as discussed below. If the employee is discharged for such conduct, the discharge would be for misconduct. For example, if a bank vice president were arrested and convicted of theft, public trust in the bank could be seriously weakened even though the theft was not directed against the bank and was not committed during working hours.
On the other hand, the arrest and conviction of a janitor of the same bank on a similar charge would have little if no effect on the public trust in the bank. Example - Public Trust in Employer Affected: In P-B, the claimant worked as a registered pharmacist.
He did not report for work on January 14 because he had been arrested and jailed for illegal possession of narcotics. He was released on bond on January 17, and returned to work on January His supervisor suspended him pending the outcome of his arrest.
About five weeks later, the employer interviewed the claimant, who admitted to the illegal possession of the narcotics. The Board ruled that the claimant was discharged for misconduct in connection with his work, and stated: In the present case, the claimant was a registered pharmacist who, because of his occupation, was aware of the laws governing the possession of narcotics and was serving the public on behalf of the employer in a position of trust which called for the preparation and sale of drugs and narcotics upon prescription.
Such faith and confidence was, of course, largely dependent upon those individuals who represented the employer in its dealings with the public.
In such a position he would not be serving the public on behalf of the employer in a position of trust. In the above case, the claimant was discharged for misconduct because of illegal activities committed during off-duty hours. Title 22, Section b 2 provides: Example - Not Illegal Activity off the Job: The claimant was a camp counselor for youth camps.While you can regulate your employees' behavior at work, your employees' off-duty conduct is a different story.
When it comes to activities or behavior employees are engaged while not at work, employers have very limited say. Lawsuits from ex-employees, negative publicity, low morale and related turnover are among the potential results when employees are fired for off-the-job behavior.
However, your right to monitor your employees' conduct off the job -- and make decisions based on that conduct -- is limited. If your investigation or questions invade an employee's right to privacy, you might end up in court.
View Notes - MGMT Week 2 Case Study - Off-the-Job Behaviors from MGMT at DeVry University, Chicago. Off-the-Job Behaviors Human Resource Management MGMT 1.
Do you believe Oilers employee83%(12). Textbook Case Study Off-the-Job Behavior 1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position. Peter Oiler’s termination from his job by the Winn-Dixie Corporation was an obvious violation of his employee rights.
Davidson, Robert H. and Dey, Aiyesha and Smith, Abbie J., Executives’ 'Off-the-Job' Behavior, Corporate Culture, and Financial Reporting Risk (February 27, ).
Chicago Booth Research Paper No. ; Fama-Miller Working Paper.