Drama sits at the heart of reality television. Most of the time, the drama unfolds from the season’s villain, as situations and comments are curated to shock audiences. But can those comments or the reputation of a contestant within this curated reality be grounds for disciplinary action by their off-screen employer?

Poor employee conduct in reality TV

In 2019, Jess Glasgow, a former Councillor of Noosa Shire Council was accused of misconduct after appearing as a contestant on reality show, The Bachelorette. During this 2019 season of The Bachelorette, Mr Glasgow was one of the many male contestants seeking the affection of former Goggle Box star, Angie Kent.

The allegations of misconduct included discussing his role in Noosa politics, suggesting he had the ‘key to the city’ and making inappropriate comments about Angie Kent.

Mr Glasgow’s behaviour on the program lead to complaints directed at the Noosa Mayor, as well as the CEO of Noosa Shire Council.

The Councillor Conduct Tribunal determined that Mr Glasgow had engaged in misconduct, violating both the Local Government Act and the relevant Code of Conduct.

The Tribunal also noted that, had Mr Glasgow still been serving as a Councillor at the time of the judgment, it was likely they would have recommended to the Minister that he be suspended or dismissed from office. Additionally, the Tribunal imposed a fine on him.

Like many reality TV participants, Mr Glasgow argued that he had been heavily edited and instructed by producers to act in certain ways, however, the Tribunal rejected this claim. One key reason for the rejection was a radio interview in which Mr Glasgow stated, “It was… my personal self on there.”

In private enterprise, can misconduct outside of work be grounds for disciplinary action?

Though the above decision relates specifically to the duties of local government politicians to the public, the principles discussed are also relevant in a private enterprise employment context. If an employee appears on a reality TV show and engages in conduct (or is made to appear as though they do through editing) that leads to public criticism, this may have consequences for their off-screen employer, which could lead to disciplinary action.

Typically, reality TV contestants are only identified by their first names, and their occupations are broadly described (often with vague titles like “Instagram Influencer” or “Digital Marketer”). Therefore, it’s generally assumed that these contestants are acting in a private capacity, and their behaviour on the show doesn’t directly relate to their employment. This is similar to how an employer might view an employee’s private social media activity or personal behaviour outside of work hours.

Guidelines for company employees in Australia

While in the workplace, employers expect employees to adhere to ethical conduct and professionalism. To ensure this, it is important to set clear expectations for appropriate behaviour and prevent misconduct through company policies and an employee Code of Conduct. This Code of Conduct can play a role in resolving any conflicts that may arise which warrant disciplinary action or termination, but this typically only applies while an employee is in the workplace.

If misconduct occurs outside of the workplace, what rights do employers have?

The guidelines for determining whether an employer can terminate an employee due to their conduct outside of work were outlined by Vice President Ross in the case of Rose v Telstra Corporation [1998] AIRC 1592. The key principles of this case are:

• The conduct must objectively be likely to cause significant harm to the relationship between employer and employee.
• It must harm the employer’s interests.
• It must be incompatible with the employee’s duties.

Essentially, for disciplinary action to be valid, the conduct must be serious enough to indicate a breach of the employment contract. Without such a connection, an employer has no right to control an employee’s behaviour outside of work. This view aligns with Justice Finn’s caution in McManus v Scott-Charlton [1996] FCA 904, where he emphasised that an employer’s supervision of an employee’s private activities must be carefully justified.

In short, for disciplinary action to occur, the conduct must be linked to the employer’s interests, such as harming their reputation, brand, or workplace culture.

Reality TV shows: A cautionary tale

Given the popularity of many reality TV shows and the public debate they generate, especially on social media, an employee’s appearance on such a program could potentially damage their employer’s reputation or brand, as seen in Mr Glasgow’s case.

There are certain situations that could make it more likely for disciplinary action against an employee to be appropriate, including:

• If they identify their employer during the show or in promotional materials.
• If their job involves public interaction, especially in a representative or ambassadorial role, where public goodwill is important.
• If their behavior is discriminatory, offensive, abusive, violent, or inappropriate.
• If the employee, knowing the potential for public backlash, fails to alert their employer, preventing the employer from managing the situation proactively.

The situation becomes more complicated if the employer has given explicit consent for the employee to appear on the reality TV show.

If an employer has given permission for an employee to be a contestant, they are presumably aware of the potential reputational risks to both the employee and the employer. Most reality TV shows feature contestants who, for various reasons, become targets for public criticism. In such cases, employers may find it more difficult to justify terminating an employee’s contract.

However, depending on the nature of the employee’s role and their employment contract, an employer might not need to provide permission for an employee to appear on the show. As mentioned earlier, these appearances are generally considered private matters (even if they are very publicised).

Practically speaking, employees will likely need to take leave (typically annual or long service leave) to appear on a reality TV show, though they are not obliged to disclose the purpose of the leave. Permission for leave should not be confused with explicit consent to appear on the program.

It’s a common assumption that many reality TV contestants are hoping for fame and a new career in media, leaving behind their previous jobs. While a small number of contestants manage to leverage their appearance into a media career, most return to their regular lives and previous jobs. Therefore, the potential impact on employment for both the employer and employee should be carefully considered, especially in terms of defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

How Business Chamber Queensland can help

Managing employees and compliance with the regulations surrounding this important business relationship can be complex and constantly changing. If you need support determining if any form of employee conduct is grounds for disciplinary action, our Workplace Advisory team can help.

Our Workplace Advisory team provide insight, support and resources to guide you in making informed business decisions, helping you avoid issues around workforce management. Business Chamber Queensland Business Essentials and Business Evolve members can make unlimited calls to our Workplace Services Hotline for Human Resources support. Plus, all Business Chamber Queensland members can access Workplace Consulting Services at discounted rates.