Dismissal For Out-Of-Hours Activities:    

In the November case of Pay v Lancashire Probation Service  (Times, 27 November 2003 EAT)  Mr Pay was a probation officer who in his spare time performed shows at 'hedonist and fetish clubs' and sold various bondage products through the internet.

Unsurprisingly the LPS dismissed him when they found out after a proper investigation even though there were no criticisms of his work as a probation officer. Instead the LPS said his out-of-hours activities were incompatible with his duties and could damage their reputation if made known publicly.

He claimed unfair dismissal but lost. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (respect for private life) did not apply because his activities were in the 'public domain' and Article 10 (freedom of expression) did apply here, but on the facts, particularly as the LPS was in the public sector, they had established proportionate justification under Article 10(2). Rights under the Human Rights Act generally have justification defences and in practice the Act may well make little difference to unfair dismissal claims.

Although it does not appear to have been an issue in this case, many employment contracts have clauses restricting what other paid work employees can do out of hours and it might certainly be worth restricting activities which could bring the employer into disrepute.