Off-duty applies where the emergency services personnel renders assistance but is faced with a greater risk of harm than while on-duty. That such an individual makes a voluntary effort to assist in an emergency situation without the motivation of being paid. Furthermore, an off-duty emergency services personnel has the option of choosing to assist or not ( Erich, 2004) . However, the on-duty worker has an obligation to offer assistance as mandated by the departmental policies or their employment code.
In most emergency service departments, the approach to addressing the provision of aid while off duty regards it as the person’s choice. It extends to mean that off-duty services do not form part of the duties bestowed on an emergency services personnel, but applies largely in an ethical point of view. In light of this, emergency services personnel may be considered truly "off duty" when rendering services outside the specifications of their department’s schedule. It places off duty emergency services personnel on the exact legal consideration as an ordinary citizen volunteer, insisting that such a person lacks the mandated obligation to provide services while on duty ( Erich, 2004) . All the same, being off-duty also applies on a case by case basis since various jurisdictions allow emergency services personnel to offer services during emergencies, even when their department considers them off duty. In such cases, off duty harm sustained from of providing aid remains worth compensating.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In common occurrences, the level to which the organization can justifiably seek to scrutinize the off-duty behavior of personnel, and engage the necessary action in addressing breaches of the specified code of practice, rests on a number of factors. Firstly, employees while on off-duty fall outside the organization’s jurisdiction but still have to uphold the ethical standards of the organization. Such personnel remain under the governance of the codes of the public law as enshrined in the law on labor relations. Additionally, the employee is bound by the provisions of particular legal enactments which have a bearing on the terms of service and employment relationship. Pertaining to emergency service organizations in the private sector, most of the legal provisions depict less concern on the conduct of off duty personnel. On the other hand, such matters remain pertinent in the public sector and various statutory provisions prevail in ensuring a positive employment relationship while on duty or off duty.
Further, in cases where the employees have union rights, the degree to which the organization may scrutinize their off duty conduct falls under the specifications of the collective agreement. Such an agreement stipulates the circumstances under which the organization may scrutinize staff behavior and institute corrective measures. More often than not, the firm's right to scrutinize off duty behavior remains subject to the stipulations of the clause of management rights in the employees’ agreement ( Sonnet, 2008) .
In effect, the organization’s right to scrutinize off duty conduct of personnel falls subject to determination in light of common codes of fairness and notice. In other words, any scrutiny instituted by the organization remains only enforceable if it is deemed to be based on reasonable grounds. That is, a sensible connection exists between the need for scrutiny on the specific behavior that the organization seeks to control and the firm's legitimate interests. For instance, scrutiny applies where the organization prohibits workers from rendering services to a rival organization while off-duty. Considering the high level of discipline needed in the provision of emergency services, personnel will typically have defined code of conduct which constrains them to total adherence whether on duty or off duty. The terms provided in the contract will generally triumph over the commonly applicable principles founded in the public law since they are held in high regard by the employer and employee. Moreover, the contractual terms apply as a written expressive document detailing the common resolve by the organization and the personnel for the entire period of employment.
As the chief or emergency management leader and faced with a similar situation, the best course of action in handling the situation will involve adhering to the terms of employment. T he most significant fact to bear in mind in this case is that the terms of employment under established provisions prevail over the public principles enshrined in the common law. Thus, a truly sanctioned provision impacting on the specified aspects of off duty behavior remains enforceable despite the emergency presenting in the circumstance ( Sonne, 2008) . As such, it would be necessary to follow through a process of scrutiny, irrespective of whether or not it falls in conformity with the principles of emergency service.
It remains clear that a prohibition on disreputable behavior is aimed at covering a specific sort of off duty conduct. Where the organization’s legitimate interests come into question, the requirement is to invoke the principles of common law to aid in the clarification of the matter. Another aspect involves the fact that off-duty personnel who come across emergency situations in which they would possess legal jurisdiction had they been on duty ( Larson et al., 2006) . Any actions to intervene or exercising their expertise as emergency service personnel remains voluntary but is considered to effectively shift their status to on duty. Therefore any behavior which contrasts the legitimate implementation of formal emergency services will be considered as contravening the principles of service.
References
Erich, J. (2004). Where Duty Ends: The Perils and Pitfalls of Off-Duty Response.
Larson, R. C., Metzger, M. D., & Cahn, M. F. (2006). Responding to emergencies: Lessons learned and the need for analysis. Interfaces , 36 (6), 486-501.
Sonne, J. A. (2008). Monitoring for Quality Assurance: Employer Regulation of Off-Duty Behavior. Ga. L. Rev. , 43 , 133.
