Former Rspca Head Vindicated

[Steve]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907609.htm?section=business

Former RSPCA head vindicated

Posted Mon May 24, 2010 12:24pm AEST

The RSPCA says the decision is not the best outcome for the organisation. (ABC News)

• Map: Launceston 7250
  

The Tasmanian Industrial Commission has found the RSPCA unfairly dismissed its former chief executive.

Greg Tredinnick was sacked by the RSPCA's board 18 months into his three year contract.

Mr Tredinnick took his dismissal to the Industrial Commission, arguing his employment performance did not justify termination, and he was not given an opportunity to respond fairly to any allegations against him.

Lawyers for the RSPCA argued the dismissal was not unfair, because Mr Tredinnick failed to perform or even understand his duties as a chief executive and was not competent in the role.

In his findings, Deputy Industrial Commissioner Tim Abey said the challenging operating environment at the RSPCA lead him to the unfair dismissal finding, and Mr Tredinnick should have been given an ultimatum before he was sacked.

He ordered the RSPCA to pay the former CEO more than $17,000 compensation.

RSPCA president Paul Swiatkowski says it is not the best outcome for the organisation.

"$17,500 is money we should be spending on the animals, not on people," he said.

"The reality is I am disappointed, but effectively what came out on the public record, to me, is important."

[tdierikx]

Considering that unfair dismissal can award up to the equivalent of 6 months pay... 17.5k is a pittance - or they pay their executive staff stuff all...

T.

[spottychick]

They pay their execs more than enough - which is why they've recently lost their major sponsors in Tassie. I almost snorted coffee out my nose when I read the Presidents quoted comment LMAO - suddenly they are concerned about spending money on the animals instead of people!! AMazing!

[cannibalgoldfish]

I like Paul (Swiatkowski) actually. He has no people skills but he really cares about the animals. I just switched vets to him because he has a very good rep when it comes to them (he is a vet) When Tasmania recently decided to bring in new dangerous dog laws he wrote into the paper saying the new laws were discriminatory and would be a waste of time because it should be blame the deed, not the breed.

[spottychick]

I dont know him and he might be lovely, I wouldn't know. My comment was not about him as an individual but about the Tas RSPCAs recent controversies and the irony of the comment in the context of how they've behaved in the recent past. For all I know Paul may not have been involved with the RSPCA at the time but the comment is still ironic

[WreckitWhippet]

"$17,500 is money we should be spending on the animals, not on people," he said.

yeah right

[whippets]

17.5k less to spend on the RSPCA lawyer coffers