A NIGHT porter who tampered with a CCTV camera at a block of luxury flats for the elderly in Cookley after complaining he did not want to be filmed eating and drinking has been awarded more than £11,000 for unfair dismissal.

Andrew Morris, 54, formerly of Comberton Hill, Kidderminster, who was one of two porters at Westley Court, was filmed changing the direction of the security camera, a Birmingham Employment Tribunal was told.

"All we could see were wall lights", said Westley Court general manager, Keith Prince. "It was the last straw."

Mr Morris, who was seeking compensation for unfair dismissal against the Westley Court management, was sacked earlier this year after nearly five years at the block.

About 80 residents, aged 55 and over, have bought their homes on the site.

Mr Prince told the tribunal security cameras had previously been fixed inside and outside the block and another one was installed, "aimed" at the reception desk and the door behind leading to the office.

The idea was to film callers approaching reception, it was said.

Mr Prince said: "Andy told us he was not going to be watched on CCTV but we had him filmed tampering with the camera. It was turned to the wall.

"We tried to resolve the matter with him but he refused to conform."

Mr Morris admitted he moved the camera but denied an allegation that he damaged part of the equipment.

"I did not want to be filmed eating and drinking in the reception area," he said.

"I felt intimidated. The point was that we were not told we were having the camera. I felt I was not trusted to do my job."

Mr Morris, who worked from 8.30pm until 8.30am next morning, for £5.50 an hour, said he was dismissed for gross misconduct but not given notice that he was to be sacked.

Tribunal chairman, Pam Hughes, said the tribunal decision was that Mr Morris had been unfairly dismissed and awarded him a total of £11,619.

She said the management had complained about Mr Morris before the camera incident, saying he had given a milkman a cup of tea and had fed a cat in the office but she added the tribunal panel had regarded those as trivial "offences".

Mrs Hughes said the management had failed to carry out the correct statutory procedure in dismissing Mr Morris.

She also criticised it for sending Mr Morris a letter warning him he could face thousands of pounds in costs if he took the matter to the tribunal.

"This letter should not have been sent - indeed costs could have been claimed against the management," Mrs Hughes added.