ERA orders ex-SPCA worker to pay $7000 costs

File photo / Hawke's Bay Today

A former SPCA general manager has been ordered to pay $7000 in legal costs, despite being earlier awarded $500 by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).

David Lloyd-Barker took his former employer to the ERA after being made redundant, months after applying for the role of CEO.

SPCA national president Bob Kerridge was involved in the case personally and said he hopes this signals the end.

He said the SPCA spent $15,000 on legal fees and could have spent the money on helping animals in need.

"We could have done a lot of things with $15,000," Mr Kerridge said.

Mr Lloyd-Barker said the SPCA had made much of their pro-bono legal panel.

However, Mr Kerridge said the panel only fought animal abuse cases for the trust, not employment issues.

Mr Lloyd-Barker said the amount was "ridiculous" but he would be able to pay it, despite three months of being unemployed recently.

"I shall pay it the best I can. It's a lot of money," Mr Lloyd-Barker said.

Last September the ERA found largely in favour of the SPCA after a hearing on three personal grievance claims by Mr Lloyd-Barker.

It said Mr Lloyd-Barker had no personal grievance case on the grounds of not being appointed SPCA chief executive. It also ruled that a written warning after Mr Lloyd-Barker sent an angry email to executive director Bob Kerridge was justified.

But it awarded Mr Lloyd-Barker $500 for an "unfair and unjustified" written warning relating to wrongful accusations he had leaked information to the media.

The SPCA has since gone back to the Authority for a ruling on legal costs.

SPCA lawyer Paul Wicks told the authority that the charitable trust had spent $15,000 preparing for the one day hearing.

In his ruling, released today, ERA member Ken Anderson said Mr Lloyd-Barker had been offered $10,000 by the SPCA to drop his grievance claim but decided instead to go through with it.

Mr Anderson said this was a factor in determining the amount Mr Lloyd-Barker should contribute to the SPCA's costs.

He said because the "weight of evidence was clearly and substantially against [Mr Lloyd-Barker], I conclude that it was unreasonable of him to reject [the offer] made approximately one month before the investigation meeting," Mr Anderson said.

He acknowledged concerns from Mr Lloyd-Barker that the SPCA has had legal work done for them on a pro-bono basis in the past because it was a charitable trust.

Mr Anderson also acknowledged that there had been no accounts submitted by the SPCA's lawyer, Paul Wicks.

"Mr Wicks has responded to this, submitting that documentary evidence of his costs to the SPCA have not been provided because of Mr Lloyd-Barker's earlier propensity to place certain information on his Facebook website.

"Normally, the Authority would wish to see evidence of costs incurred but given Mr Wicks is an experienced and credible practitioner, I accept his undertaking that the expenses incurred can be proven in these circumstances, given the experience of the Authority in regard to the costs incurred for cases such as this, I am prepared to accept that the sum of the expenses submitted in reasonable," Mr Anderson said.

Mr Lloyd-Barker maintains "it was never about the money".

Asked why he did not accept the $10,000 offer from the SPCA, Mr Lloyd-Barker said it was about principles.