SACKED RSPCA Tasmania chief executive Ben Sturges will defend allegations of bullying, favouritism and threatening staff as he tries to get his job back this week.
Mr Sturges, who was sacked earlier this month, enters into conciliation with the organisation's board on Wednesday to seek reinstatement.
If the two parties cannot reach a resolution on Wednesday, the case will be elevated to a Fair Work Australia hearing.
Mr Sturges has argued that there was no procedural fairness in his sacking.
Mr Sturges was stood down in September on full pay while a workplace investigation was conducted, sparked by an anonymous letter to the board, signed ``staff members of RSPCA Tasmania''.
The investigation found that the former chief executive had made derogatory statements about the board, withheld information from the board, bullied and harassed staff and threatened their jobs, deleted portions of RSPCA emails, destroyed a work laptop hard drive and shown favouritism towards the organisation's chief vet.
Mr Sturges has denied each of these allegations.
RSPCA Tasmania president Paul Swiatkowski said this was the second time that the RSPCA board had sought an independent investigation into Mr Sturges's conduct.
The first investigation in March looked at issues at the Hobart shelter, including a perceived relationship Mr Sturges had with the organisation's chief vet and whether it had affected his operational capacity.
The latter James O'Neill investigation concluded that without the board's knowledge, Mr Sturges had created the senior position of chief vet for the organisation's existing veterinarian that came with a pay rise.
Mr Sturges denied that the chief vet position came with a pay rise and said all other Australian RSPCA organisations had the role.
``I was employed as a commercial business manager and had never worked in the animal welfare sphere before .th.th. and relied heavily on the chief veterinarian for guidance in animal welfare areas,'' he said.
Mr Sturges said all allegations of misconduct were low-level and petty.
``The allegations are not factual or they're very broad and non-specific,'' he said.
Mr Sturges said he would argue that there was no procedural fairness in the board's decision to sack him and that the independent workplace investigation by Mr O'Neill had a predetermined outcome.
He said he believed that some staff confused management of performance with bullying.
Mr Sturges said that the laptop was in working condition when handed over to workplace investigator James O'Neill, and back-up data was provided.
Dr Swiatkowski said the decision to dismiss Mr Sturges was reached after five hours' deliberation that reviewed evidence from the independent investigator and staff statements, and took into account Mr Sturges's detailed response to all allegations.
``I want to also make it clear that the issue was not, and has never been, about Ben's ability _ it was with his conduct,'' Dr Swiatkowski said.