The recent prosecution of a council worker who secretly held four full-time roles has reignited debate about so-called “moonlighting” – the practice of having more than one job. For most employers, it’s an issue that sits at the blurred edge between autonomy and accountability. But as this extraordinary case shows, the line between legitimate secondary work and outright deception can be perilously thin.
The case that captured attention
Earlier this year, Mr Howells, a local government employee, was sentenced to three years in prison after it emerged that he had been working four full-time jobs across different councils between 2022 and 2023.
He was employed as a strategic housing officer, a senior development surveyor, a valuer and, through an agency, as an estates surveyor. Each council assumed it was his only employer. The overlap came to light only after a payroll review revealed that his working hours simply didn’t add up.
When challenged, he claimed he hadn’t meant to mislead anyone. That he was just trying to help resource-stretched councils and that his timesheets had in fact only showed when he was “available”, not when he was actually working.
The court didn’t accept that explanation, however, and he was convicted of nine counts of fraud, with his former employers now actively seeking to claw back the salaries and pension payments that were made to him in good faith.
This, of course, was quite an exaggerated example of moonlighting, and not entirely representative of what occurs in most instances. But that aside, it does raise wider questions about how employers can, and should, manage secondary employment in an era where hybrid working and portfolio careers are increasingly common.
Is moonlighting illegal?
Taking a second job isn’t unlawful. Plenty of people do it for legitimate reasons, whether that’s to top up their income, to gain experience, or simply because they can. The problem arises when extra work collides with contractual duties or is hidden altogether.
The Working Time Regulations 1998 often get cited in these discussions, but they only limit hours per employer. Someone can, quite legally, work 40 hours for one organisation and 20 for another. What the law doesn’t account for is the practical reality of exhaustion, mistakes and conflicting priorities that arise from having more than one employer.
That’s where wider obligations come in. If a person’s additional work leaves them too tired to do their main job safely, or if it exposes their employer to risk, then duties under health and safety law, and basic negligence principles, can come into play. The Regulations might not join the dots between employments, but the employer’s duty of care still does.
Exclusivity, disclosure and trust
Most organisations protect themselves contractually with clauses that restrict outside employment. Referred to as exclusive-service or secondary-employment clauses, these don’t necessarily ban second jobs, but they do make sure employees ask first before committing themselves elsewhere. That allows the employer to check for conflicts of interest or performance issues before problems arise.
Even if there’s no express clause, employees are bound by an implied duty of fidelity and good faith. They must act honestly and in their employer’s interests. Failing to declare outside work that competes with, or undermines, their main role can easily become gross misconduct.
Public-sector and regulated workers face stricter expectations still. Codes of conduct often require formal disclosure of any external work that might overlap. The failure to declare can be enough on its own to justify disciplinary action, regardless of whether the employee performs both jobs well.
Why this matters in practice
Cases like Mr Howells’ are rare, but the risk of undisclosed secondary work is not. Remote and hybrid working have made it easier for employees to take on overlapping roles without immediate detection. This can lead to operational problems long before dishonesty is suspected – think inconsistent performance, rising absenteeism, or unexplained delays, etc.
There are also commercial and confidentiality implications. Employees who work for multiple organisations in the same sector may inadvertently handle sensitive data or intellectual property belonging to both. In industries reliant on client relationships or strategic information, the damage can be significant even without deliberate wrongdoing.
From a governance perspective, these risks make transparency essential. Employers should not assume that staff understand what counts as a conflict, nor rely on informal conversations to manage it. Clear contractual terms and written declarations provide a necessary baseline of trust.
The limits of working-time law and the employer’s duty of care
Although the Working Time Regulations don’t combine hours across jobs, the employer’s obligation to look after staff wellbeing still applies. Overwork, fatigue and burnout are not abstract risks, as they can lead to errors, accidents and liability. If an employer becomes aware that an employee’s total hours are excessive and does nothing, the duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 may come into play.
The challenge is that employees are not legally obliged to disclose second jobs unless their contract or policy requires it. That’s why it helps to ask early. Recruitment forms and annual declarations about outside employment give employers a realistic view of an employee’s working pattern and make it easier to spot when rest breaks or safety standards might be compromised.
Lessons and safeguards for employers
The Howells case shows what happens when secondary work crosses from poor judgment into dishonesty. What made his behaviour criminal wasn’t the work itself, it was the concealment – the false timesheets, the fabricated declarations, and the deliberate attempt to appear in two places at once.
For employers, the wider lesson is about creating an environment where openness is the default and misconduct can’t take root unnoticed. It begins with the contract. Clauses requiring disclosure of outside work, and prior approval before accepting it, set the expectation clearly. Where they don’t exist, the implied duty of fidelity still applies, but it’s far more effective to make the rule explicit.
Recruitment and onboarding are another line of defence. Asking directly about other employment, and requiring written confirmation, discourages misrepresentation from the start. A well-used probationary period then gives managers space to assess performance in practice and to act swiftly if concerns arise, which matters more in a hybrid world where visibility is limited.
Culture matters too. Employees should know that second jobs aren’t automatically banned, but that they must be declared. A short, plain-language policy that explains how requests are handled (looking at hours, conflicts and confidentiality) helps both sides understand the boundaries.
Performance management and, where necessary, data checks have a place as well, so long as they’re proportionate and transparent. Payroll anomalies, recurring absences or irregular working patterns can all hint at competing commitments, but any investigation must respect privacy law and procedural fairness. The aim is to protect the trust between employer and employee, not to undermine it.
Moonlighting itself isn’t new. What’s changed is the ease with which it can happen unnoticed. Employers can’t prevent every act of deception, but they can make it far harder for such behaviour to thrive. By setting clear expectations, encouraging openness and applying those standards consistently, they protect not only their business but the principle that keeps every employment relationship functioning – trust.
