Imagine this: you're at a work social event outside of business hours, and end up having a bit too much to drink. You spew up and require help getting home. Should your employer be able to use that as a basis to fire you?

That's the situation a young woman found herself in last year. The woman, who we'll call Dee, worked as a Project Administrator for electrical contractor, Ryan Wilks Pty Ltd.

In July last year, she went to farewell drinks for a colleague who worked at the Sydney Opera House, one of Ryan Wilks' clients. That's when things started getting a little hairy.

Skip Twitter Tweet FireFox NVDA users - To access the following content, press 'M' to enter the iFrame.

Dee had, by her own admission, too much to drink. In her own words she had "never been so drunk" in her life. She vomited at the bar and had to helped off the premises and put in a cab home.

A few days later, Dee got an email saying Ryan Wilks was investigating her intoxication at the event, including allegations that she was overheard criticising her colleagues and employees of the Sydney Opera House, and that she made remarks of a sexual nature to an employee.

On August 2, Dee was told her behaviour constituted misconduct and she was fired on the spot.

Dee didn't think that was fair. She'd been a model employee up until that point. She'd never been disciplined for anything she did at work, and thought it wasn't right that she be fired for something she did outside of work hours.

So she took the case to the Fair Work Commission (FWC), saying she'd be unfairly dismissed.

The case against Dee

The FWC found allegations she'd spoken ill of colleagues and said sexual things to an employee of the Sydney Opera House "had no basis in fact".

"Astonishingly, in respect to the allegation regarding any sexual propositioning... the employer knew that allegation to be false and yet it relied upon it as reason for dismissal," Commissioner Cambridge said.

The Commissioner said Dee's behaviour at the after-work event may have constituted misconduct, but even then it wasn't enough for her employer to fire her on the spot.

"[There was] sound basis for the employer to have implemented some form of disciplinary action," Commissioner Cambridge said.

"Any employer should be very cautious about invoking a summary dismissal, as opposed to dismissal with the required notice."

There is no direct connection between a single act of drunkenness and one's ability to perform work.

The Commissioner said employers shouldn't be able to use one act of drunkenness to determine an employee's future.

"Frankly, if one act of inoffensive drunkenness at an after work function provided valid reason for dismissal, I suspect that the majority of Australian workers may have potentially lost their jobs."

Dee had expressed remorse over the whole episode.

"Yes, it is true I was drunk, so drunk that I actually vomited (which I apologised for) and got assistance to a taxi, which is a disgrace," she said in an email to the company before she was fired.

I've learnt my lesson. This is a wake-up call for me. I won't be needing assistance or vomiting at functions in the future.

Commissioner Cambridge said Dee should get her job back.

"Reinstatement would be appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case."

Her bosses at Ryan Wilks disagreed. They appealed the decision back in April, but late last month that appeal was overturned.

Hack approached Ryan Wilks for comment for this story, but did not receive answers to our inquiries. It remains unclear if Dee has resumed her old position in the company.

What are the ramifications of this case?

Principal lawyer of Maurice Blackburn's employment law section, Alex Grayson, told Hack she's seeing more and more employers try and regulate what their employees do outside of work.

I'm quite concerned about codes of conduct that reach back into people's private lives.

"I think there is an increased willingness to interfere in people's personal lives and private circumstances, and we just need to remember that once we've left work, we should be able to live our own private lives as we wish," Alex said.

That doesn't mean that employers can't fire you for stuff you do outside of work; just that the bar to what constitutes a sackable offence is really high.

"The test is whether the conduct after hours is of such gravity or seriousness that it signals the necessary end of the employment relationship, and that could be that the employers reputation is affected," Alex said.

"But a one-off where a relatively junior employee gets drunk at the bar and throws up - that shouldn't really throw and employers' relationship into jeopardy, and it didn't."

"That said, employers are taking it really seriously and are pushing the boundaries on that issue as we speak."

And this is a bit of a double-edged sword, because while employers are pushing further into their employees' personal time, they're expected to do more work-related things out of hours, too. For example, networking at social functions is a crucial part of many industries.

"We are being asked to go above and beyond in the employment relationship these days, and that can have the flow-on effect where employers are looking at the conduct at those networking events or functions," she said.