What is just cause for dismissal of a servant?

The particular act or acts justifying dismissal must depend upon the character of the act itself and the possible consequences which flow therefrom. It is necessary to determine what is just cause in the circumstances of each case. Just cause has been defined in Pearce v. Foster (1886), 17 Q.B.D. 536, at 539: The rule of law is that where a person has entered into the position of servant, if he does anything incompatible with the due or faithful discharge of his duty to his master, the latter has a right to dismiss him. The relation of master and servant implies necessarily that the servant shall be in a position to perform his duty duly and faithfully, and if by his own act he prevents himself from doing so, the master may dismiss him. It is not that the servant warrants that he will duly and faithfully perform his duty; because, if that were so, upon breach of his duty his master might bring an action against him on the warranty. But the question is, whether the breach of duty is a good ground for dismissal … What circumstances will put a servant into the position of not being able to perform, in a due manner, his duties, or of not being able to perform his duty in a faithful manner, it is impossible to enumerate. Innumerable circumstances have actually occurred which fall within that proposition, and innumerable other circumstances which never have yet occurred, will occur, which also will fall within the proposition. But if a servant is guilty of such a crime outside his service as to make it unsafe for a master to keep him in his employ, the servant may be dismissed by his master; and if the servant's conduct is so grossly immoral that all reasonable men would say that he cannot be trusted, the master may dismiss him.