Eastern Utility Company Ltd. The employer and the union agree on the following statement of fact: The grievors were classified as linemen and were sent on a special assignment in September 2016. in the Pembroke Sound area approximately Elli] miles from their home location. The assignment involved working on a project to upgrade customer seniice in rural areas. When in Pembroke Sound. the grievors' traveling and living expenses were paid by the employer. During the night of September 26 - 2?. the grievors caused damage to a Police cruiser by kicking one of its doors. kicking in the trunk. and twisting and bending signal lights. The cruiser was parked behind other cars on a service station lot on one of the principal streets in Pembroke Sound. At the time in question, the grievors were off duty and were not wearing any uniform clothing supplied by the employer that would identify them with the employer. nor were they operating any vehicles owned by the company. As a result of the incident. the grievors were arrested. taken into custody by the Pembroke Sound police. and charged with criminal offences. The grievors were scheduled to report for work on the momng of September 2?. but did not do so as they were in police custody from the time they were arrested until 1:30 pm. on September 2?. Later in the afternoon of September 2?. the grievors were suspended by a company ofcial pending further investigation of the incident. Following a meeting on October 1 between management and the grievors at which the grievors admitted responsibility for the incident. the grievors were suspended for ve working days without pay. The incident received news coverage by radio. television. and newspaper over about a 100 mile radius. However. the name of the employer was not mentioned. Several charges were laid against the grievors. which were subsequently dropped after the grievors paid for the damage to the police cruiser. After the suspensions. the employees were reassigned to the project on which they had been working at the time of the incident. The employer took the position that as a major public utility with a high public profile. its reputation must always be of great concem to it. Accordingly. the employer is entitled to take very seriously any employee conduct that would damage that reputation. While it was true the grievors were not on duty on a company project. their living expenses were being paid by the company. and in a large sense they represented the company. The employer argued that the fact the employee was not particularly connected with his employer by the news media did not prevent the employer from being associated with the employee as a result of other particular facts of the case. including the serious and agrant nature of the offence and the widespread publicity surrounding it