Senior lecturer found moonlighting at a UAE university while on his New Zealand employer's payroll
The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has upheld the dismissal of a University of Waikato senior lecturer who secretly accepted employment at a United Arab Emirates university while remaining on the New Zealand institution's payroll.
The ERA found that the University acted as a fair and reasonable employer throughout its disciplinary process, ruling that the lecturer was justifiably dismissed for serious misconduct.
A case of moonlighting
The lecturer had been employed by the University of Waikato since September 2011, most recently as a senior lecturer within the Waikato Management School.
In November 2023, he signed an employment agreement with the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) as visiting faculty, which is a paid, full-time Monday-to-Friday role commencing January 2024, without disclosing it to his manager.
Around the same time, the lecturer applied to the University for a flexible working arrangement citing health and mental health difficulties, submitting a medical certificate stating he was "unfit to resume regular work for a period of 6 months."
In January 2024, his manager discovered the signed UAEU contract in the lecturer's office, prompting a disciplinary investigation at the University.
It was alleged that the lecturer had breached its Code of Conduct and collective agreement by committing to paid overseas employment without seeking approval and without resigning from his University role.
During the investigation, the lecturer offered shifting explanations. He claimed the UAEU contract was unpaid and signed only to assist him in obtaining UAE residency, and that a verbal honorarium agreement had superseded the written contract.
He also denied the signature on the UAEU document was his. A LinkedIn post later surfaced, however, in which the lecturer had written: "my students at #UAEU are doing excellent work."
The lecturer's UAEU position was terminated by the UAE institution during its probationary period in January 2024. He was summarily dismissed by the University of Waikato in March 2024.
Was the dismissal justified?
The lecturer raised two personal grievances, unjustified dismissal and racial discrimination, and sought compensation, lost remuneration, and reinstatement.
Central to his unjustified dismissal claim was the argument that he had been in an acute psychiatric episode when he signed the UAEU contract, rendering him incapable of meaningful participation in the subsequent disciplinary process. The ERA was unpersuaded.
Authority Member Simon Greening found that the medical certificate provided by the lecturer's treating doctor made no reference to a psychotic episode.
The doctor even gave evidence that "there was no medical basis to conclude [the lecturer] was suffering from acute psychotic related issues" at the time of the assessment.
The ERA acknowledged that some of the lecturer's communications during the disciplinary process "could be described as erratic and nonsensical." These included claims that he had fled New Zealand as a protest against racism, and that the 2019 Christchurch mosque attack had been orchestrated as an attempt on his life.
However, Greening noted these were offset by a separate stream of correspondence in which the lecturer engaged constructively with the allegations, emails that the ERA characterised as "constructive, rational, and well-reasoned."
"The University, acting as a fair and reasonable employer, could continue with the disciplinary process," Greening wrote in the ruling. "The erratic and non-sensical emails, in context, were not sufficient of themselves to require the University to pause the disciplinary process."
On the discrimination claim, Greening found no evidence the dismissal was motivated by any prohibited ground, ruling the University acted on conduct grounds alone.
Both personal grievances were dismissed. Costs were reserved.
