Blog

Employees do not surrender their right to a private life when they enter into an employment relationship. As a general rule, what an employee does away from the workplace and outside working hours is not the employer’s concern. However, off-duty conduct may become an employment matter when it has a sufficiently close connection, or nexus, to the employee’s work, the employer’s business, or the continued employment relationship.

The central concern is therefore not simply whether the employee’s conduct was objectionable, dishonest, or even criminal. Rather, the employer must establish why the conduct is relevant to the workplace and how it affects a legitimate employment-related interest.

Understanding the Nexus Requirement

A nexus is a demonstrable link between the off-duty conduct and the employment relationship. It may exist where the conduct damages the employer’s reputation, undermines trust, affects the employee’s ability to perform the job, threatens workplace safety, disrupts relationships between employees, or conflicts directly with the responsibilities attached to the employee’s position.

The location and timing of the conduct are relevant but not decisive. Misconduct committed away from the employer’s premises may still be work-related, while conduct occurring near a workplace may remain essentially private. The enquiry is contextual and focuses on the nature of the conduct, the employee’s position and responsibilities, the employer’s business, the identities of those involved, and the actual or reasonably foreseeable effect on the workplace.

Finding a nexus between the conduct and the employment relationship is consistent with the principle that employers generally lack authority to discipline employees for conduct that is unrelated to work and occurs outside working hours. An exception arises where the conduct destroys or seriously damages the employment relationship. This distinction was expressly recognised in Edcon Ltd v Cantamessa and Others (JR30/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 273.

Importantly, the seriousness of the conduct does not, by itself, establish a nexus. Moral disapproval, public controversy, or the fact that the employee has been arrested or charged with an offence is not a substitute for evidence showing an employment-related impact.

When a Nexus Has Been Established

In Edcon Ltd v Cantamessa and Others, a senior specialist buyer published a racially offensive comment on Facebook while she was on annual leave. Her social media profile identified her as an Edcon employee, and the post generated public reaction linking her conduct to the employer. The Labour Court held that the employer was entitled to discipline her because the conduct had exposed the business to reputational harm and seriously damaged the employment relationship. Her seniority and the fact that she had associated herself publicly with the employer strengthened the connection.

The case illustrates that an employee does not avoid workplace consequences merely because a social-media post is made from a private account, outside working hours, or while on leave. Where the employer is identifiable and the publication causes, or creates a material risk of, reputational damage, the necessary nexus may be established. Nevertheless, employers should prove the connection and impact rather than assume that any controversial online statement automatically constitutes misconduct.

A nexus was also established in Dolo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1655/07) [2010] ZALC 148. The employee was a table inspector at a casino and became involved in a fraudulent scheme in her private life. Funds obtained through false invoices were paid into her bank account, after which she withdrew or transferred the money. Although the fraud was not committed against the casino, the dishonest conduct was directly relevant to a position in which honesty and integrity were fundamental.

The Court accepted that an employer operating a casino had a legitimate interest in the integrity of an employee responsible for overseeing gaming tables. The employee’s participation in external fraud undermined the confidence required for her position. The nature of her duties, rather than merely the criminal character of the conduct, created the necessary link between her private actions and the employment relationship.

A similar principle arose in City of Cape Town v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others, concerning an employee who had fraudulently obtained a driver’s licence several years earlier. The Labour Court accepted that there was a sufficient nexus because the employee occupied a senior management position and had participated in subverting a public licensing system. Her responsibilities and the public trust associated with her position made the dishonesty relevant to the employment relationship. The Court ultimately found that dismissal was justified.

Off-duty violence may also have a workplace connection. In Saal v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd, the dismissal of an employee for an assault in a mine village was upheld because the incident occurred within a community closely connected to the employer and had implications for workplace harmony. Similarly, Horn v Beesnaar NO and Others concerned an assault involving co-workers near the workplace. The identities of the parties, the proximity to work, and the resulting effect on working relationships supported disciplinary intervention.

These cases demonstrate that the nexus may arise from reputational harm, special requirements of the employee’s position, a breakdown of trust, or the effect of the conduct on other employees and workplace relationships.

When a Nexus Has Not Been Established

The other side of the principle is that even serious or criminal conduct may fall outside of the employer’s disciplinary reach if it has no proven effect on the employment relationship.

In IMATU obo Sauls v City of Cape Town and Others (C485/2024) [2026] ZALCCT 10, a learner law-enforcement officer was arrested for driving under the influence while off duty. He was driving his private vehicle, wearing civilian clothes, and was not performing any function for the city. The criminal matter was resolved through a diversion programme, and he did not acquire a criminal record. The Labour Court set aside the finding that his dismissal was fair and ordered retrospective reinstatement.

The Court’s approach confirms that an employee’s occupation cannot automatically convert every private transgression into workplace misconduct. Although law enforcement employees are subject to high standards, the employer still had to show how the particular incident affected the employee’s duties, the City’s reputation, its operations, or the trust relationship. The employee had not used an official vehicle, worn a uniform, or represented himself as acting for the employer. The required nexus could therefore not simply be inferred from his job title.

The decision is especially important because it distinguishes between conduct that is inconsistent with the general values associated with a position and conduct that has a sufficiently concrete employment-related effect. An employer cannot rely only on broad assertions that an incident has caused embarrassment or brought it into disrepute. Evidence of reputational damage, operational consequences, loss of trust, or an impaired ability to perform the job will ordinarily be necessary.

The same caution applies where an employee is arrested or faces criminal allegations. An arrest is not proof of guilt, and criminal charges do not automatically establish that the employee has contravened a workplace rule. Unless the underlying conduct is proven on a balance of probabilities and shown to be relevant to the employment relationship, disciplinary action may be premature or unfair.

How Employers Should Approach Off-Duty Conduct

Before instituting disciplinary action, an employer should identify the legitimate business interest allegedly affected. The charge should explain the connection between the conduct and the workplace rather than merely label the incident as “bringing the employer into disrepute”.

Relevant considerations include whether the employee was identifiable as a representative of the employer, whether colleagues or clients were involved, whether the conduct affected the employee’s ability or legal capacity to perform the job, and whether credible evidence of reputational or operational harm exists. The employee’s seniority, public-facing responsibilities, and the degree of trust inherent in the position may also be important.

Employers should also consider the employee’s constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of expression. These rights are not absolute, but workplace rules regulating private conduct should be clear, reasonable, and directed at protecting legitimate business interests. Overly broad rules that attempt to regulate every aspect of employees’ private lives may be difficult to justify.

Even where a nexus is established, dismissal does not follow automatically. The employer must still prove the misconduct, follow a fair procedure, and demonstrate that dismissal is an appropriate sanction. The employee’s length of service, disciplinary record, position, remorse, consistency of discipline, and the extent of any actual harm remain relevant.

Striking a Balance

Off-duty misconduct requires employers to draw a careful line between legitimate business protection and unjustified intrusion into employees’ private lives. The decisive issue is not where or when the conduct occurred, but whether there is a clear and proven connection to the employment relationship.

Cases such as Edcon, Dolo, and City of Cape Town show that discipline may be justified where private conduct damages the employer’s reputation, conflicts with the essential requirements of the employee’s position, or destroys trust. IMATU obo Sauls, however, confirms that serious or unlawful conduct is not automatically an employment offence. Without evidence of a sufficient nexus, an employer risks acting beyond the proper boundaries of the employment relationship and imposing an unfair dismissal.