Seriously though, -if- he's performing up to expected standards at each of this three jobs, and there is no conflict of interest between these companies, why is it a problem? The only real problem seems to be that he didn't disclose it--not that there was anything inherently immoral about taking more than one job.
When someone holds down three low-paid service jobs, we congratulate them for working their ass off. But when someone on salary does the same thing, employers cry foul.
> But he simply didn't have the time to execute because he was secretly splitting his time between 3 companies. So he was fired for low productivity...
I'm not a lawyer, but in general I think it would come down to the laws where this took place, the nature of the work, and the impact on the employee's ability to fulfill their job duties.
My understanding is there could be a common law duty to the employer at play, even when the employee didn't sign a noncompete and there's nothing specifically called out in the employment agreement.
It's also my understanding that if the employee acted to the detriment of the employer, such as compromising their own ability to perform job duties (as happened here) or competed against that employer, they may be in breach of that duty and could be terminated for cause depending on the specific laws.
So, if anybody is thinking about trying this, it's probably worth checking into local laws and potentially keeping records such as the hours worked for each employer. I would assume it's slightly more cut and dry when an hourly employee is in breach, since the hours are normally already tracked.
When someone holds down three low-paid service jobs, we congratulate them for working their ass off. But when someone on salary does the same thing, employers cry foul.