I agree with Michael’s assessment and conclusion.
Any form of misconduct which connects the perpetrator to his or her employer reflects on the image and reputation of that person’s employer. If the person is identified as an employee, he or she effectively represents the employer’s values and standards of conduct in his or her interactions with third parties – such as staff and customers in a supermarket. It follows that misconduct in public which would constitute misconduct in the workplace warrants disciplinary censure by the employer as if it happened in the workplace. And it could warrant dismissal if the misconduct was serious.
The principle applies equally to an employee who does something good in public which aligns with the employer’s values and standards of conduct – for example, if the person wearing the employer’s uniform spots a shoplifter and reports him to the manager, or assists a customer who suffers a heart attack in the store. The supermarket would praise the employee and think well of the employer by association.
It’s generally understood that personal and employer reputations can be harmed by negative actions and enhanced by positive actions. For this reason, it’s not necessary for the employer to “prove the disrepute”. Proof of the facts and context in which the act occurred provides the evidence.
