Off-duty behaviour does matter
Bernice was a 36-year-old teacher working for a school board and a member of a union. In April 2021, she went into a Starbucks in Toronto without a mask on and ordered a coffee. The barista asked her about not wearing a mask and she said she was exempt from the mask requirement. The barista asked her to wait outside for her coffee. Bernice got upset because she was a regular Starbucks customer but not at this location. She had never been asked to wait outside before. She complained about the request but complied.
Bernice kept her eye out and when she saw her coffee was ready, she went in to retrieve it. At that point, a 20-year-old customer who was also waiting made a crack. Bernice made a derogatory statement about her age, implying she was an adolescent. There was a heated verbal exchange and the 20-year-old said she was going to mess Bernice up outside. Bernice left the store and the other customer followed her. The other woman slapped Bernice’s coffee from her hand. Bernice grabbed her jacket, and pushing her shoulders, hauled her to the ground. They both ended up there before some Starbucks employees broke it up. Bernice called the police. After a cursory investigation, they decided it was a consensual fight and no charges were laid.
Then came the TikTok video. Another customer had been filming part of what happened. The video described Bernice as an antimasker who demanded to be served without a mask. It then claimed that when another customer stood up for the Starbucks employees, Bernice assaulted her by pulling her hair and slamming her into the concrete. Bernice’s name and photo were included. It did not show the fight outside, just part of what happened inside the store.
When the school board Bernice worked for got wind of the TikTok video, it did a brief investigation and fired her. This all happened around 10 a.m. but Bernice was not scheduled to start her online classes until 12:30 p.m. The employer told her in her termination letter that “your conduct, during the school day, in provoking and engaging in a verbal and physical altercation … with someone you identified as a school-aged individual … is completely inappropriate. Your behaviour represents a form of unprofessionalism which will not and cannot be condoned by the board. Your conduct is in complete contravention of your moral responsibilities as a teacher.”
When Bernice grieved her termination, it became clear the TikTok video was inaccurate and misleading. It was not Bernice who started the physical altercation. It was the other customer who slapped the coffee out of her hand. Bernice’s behaviour was inappropriate but not as drastic as the video described.
When Bernice grieved her termination through her union, the adjudicator noted that teachers hold a position of trust, competence and responsibility. Their behaviour off the job can affect public confidence in the teacher and the school system. A loss of respect by their students and other teachers and community can disrupt and harm the delivery of education.
Ultimately, the adjudicator decided Bernice’s behaviour warranted some sort of discipline but not capital punishment … loss of her career. The adjudicator ordered Bernice be reinstated to her position with a one-month suspension without pay.
What you do on your own time is usually your own business unless it harms your employer. If you are a nighttime janitor, very little you do can harm the reputation or business interests of your employer, not to diminish the importance of that work. If you are a bank manager or teacher or somebody who represents, to some extent, the public face of the organization, things are different.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
