• The duty not to bring an employer’s name into disrepute is a contractual duty, falling under the duty of good faith that an employee owes an employer which is an implicit term of the contract of employment.
• The uniform must clearly identify the employer linking the conduct to the employer.
• The employer must prove that the conduct of the employee (the assault) either actually harmed the employer’s reputation or could reasonably be expected to harm it.
• The facts speak for themselves in this case (the uniform clearly identified the employer and the assault took place in a public setting and therefore there is no need, I believe, for the employer to lead evidence that the assault actually harmed the employer’s reputation.
• The employee, therefore, is clearly guilty of bringing the employer’s reputation into disrepute.
Whether they should be dismissed is another question and would depend on a number of factors: the seriousness of the assault, the number of supermarket customers who witnessed the assault and who were able to identify the employer from the uniform as well as the other usual aggravating and mitigating factors (length of service etc).
