ERA rejects the working student's claim for unfair dismissal
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has upheld the University of Auckland's decision to fire a working student for taking to his flat a university-owned TV.
The ERA ruled that Matthew Barry had not established that the university failed to act as a fair and reasonable employer in dismissing him.
"His application for a finding of a personal grievance is declined," the ERA ruled.
Barry was enrolled as a student and hired as a security guard at the time of the incident, as heard by the ERA. He found the television when he was tasked along with his other colleagues to remove some audio-visual equipment in seven lecture theatres and replace them with new ones.
According to Barry, he was given the "very clear impression" while carrying out their task that he was free to remove an unwanted TV as it was going to be scrapped.
This prompted him to take one television from a storage room and bring it with him to his flat. He also took a power supply unit that was needed to operate the television.
His actions were reported by a flatmate a month later, who told the university that Barry "bragged about stealing from the university."
Philip Kirkham, the university's campus operations manager, then got in touch with the police who carried out a search warrant in the flat.
Kirkham told the police that the television was not authorised for sale nor destruction, and it was still recorded as an asset in the university's register.
As a result of the incident, Barry was terminated from his job, which he disputed at the ERA. The former security guard criticised the university's investigation that took more than 15 weeks, and the involvement of the police in the case before checking possible reasons.
He also claimed that his dismissal was unfair because he believed the television was "obtained legitimately as surplus to requirements."
But the ERA ruled in favour of the university in the case.
On the university's prolonged investigation, the ERA considered the text Barry sent to a former colleague that read: "I'm still currently on leave without pay hahaha its excel[lent]."
"If there was evidence that he had expressed concern about the delay and pressed the university for progress, it could be said he was unfairly treated," the ERA said.
The ERA, however, recognised the potential unfairness against Barry when he was not given an opportunity to return the items voluntarily. However, it noted that the police search did not result in Barry being treated unfairly.
"It did not deprive him of property to which he held any proper right to have," the ERA said.
"The perhaps unnecessary intrusion into his home, if there was a prospect he might have returned the television and power supply unit voluntarily if asked, was not sufficient to find he was treated so unfairly that he had established a grievance of unjustified disadvantage."
