In her determination, authority member Trish MacKinnon said Mr Thomas had not persuaded her he was being required to do any more "than could reasonably be expected of him under his job description".
"The only evidence he provided was his views and assertions which appeared to be based on unrealistic expectations," she said.
She found Mr Thomas had no personal grievance, dismissed the claim and reserved costs.
In a costs determination released yesterday, Mr Thomas has been ordered to contribute toward the costs incurred by the college's Board of Trustees in the sum of $3500.
The authority noted the Central Hawke's Bay College Board of Trustees sought an award of costs against Mr Thomas, and felt his conduct to be "relevant to an award of costs in this instance".
"In its submission Mr Thomas' claim to have been disadvantaged in his employment was flawed from the outset as the tasks for which he was claiming to be disadvantaged were clearly set out in his job description," the determination stated.
"Nonetheless the board said it attended a number of informal and formal meditations with Mr Thomas in a good-faith attempt to reach a sensible outcome with him."
Counsel for the board stated Mr Thomas' pursuit of his claim after his union decided not to act for him, and "in the knowledge that he faced significant challenges" was "irresponsible and unreasonable resulting in the board incurring significant costs".
To the authority, the board had stated it incurred costs of $22,990 plus GST and disbursements of $556.44 in successfully defending Mr Thomas' claims.
The authority noted the board had provided no documentation or analysis of how the costs were incurred.
The board's counsel noted the board should not be left to "wear the cost of Mr Thomas' conduct and disregard for the pursuit of a 'doomed' claim'."
They submitted that if Mr Thomas had been "properly represented and proceeded reasonably" the investigation meeting would not have proceeded.
In the determination Ms MacKinnon stated the board had incurred costs defending a claim which she found lacked merit.
However she said Mr Thomas was entitled to represent himself in the authority and should not be penalised for doing so.
As the investigation meeting occupied one day, the starting point for a consideration of the quantum of costs is the authority's notional daily tariff, which at the time was $3,500.
"I am not persuaded that an uplift to the tariff is justified by Mr Thomas' failure to obtain representation or by the way he proceeded in his pursuit of what he perceived to be a personal grievance," the determination read.
She ordered Mr Thomas to contribute toward the costs incurred by the board.