A Queensland charity worker has won a Fair Work general protections payout of over $670,000 after she was dismissed following a “sham” investigation. The court found the dismissal process initiated by the charity’s HR manager was a “concoction” designed to punish the worker for complaining about a hostile work environment and bullying. It ruled the HR manager had “hoodwinked” the CEO into firing the worker, which left her unable to work due to severe anxiety and depression.
In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work general protections claim Barlow v St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland (No 2) [2026]. This case is a reminder that HR is often not your friend (a topic we’ve covered several times on this blog).
Shannon Barlow started working for the St. Vincent de Paul Society Queensland in May 2019. As a regional operations manager, she oversaw retail and logistics across central Queensland. Ms. Barlow brought an 18-year background in executive management to the role. However, according to the Fair Work general protections proceedings, she was subjected to a “toxic” work environment and bullying almost immediately.
The primary antagonist was Tanya Doherty, an executive leader at St Vincent de Paul Society. Ms. Barlow alleged that Ms. Doherty frequently bypassed her to give direct orders to subordinates, leaving her with “no visibility” of operational issues. By early 2021, the conflict caused Ms. Barlow to suffer frequent vomiting and headaches. Her mental health struggles took a turn for the worse on 13 March 2021, following a phone call with Ms. Doherty. While driving to work after the call, Ms. Barlow was forced to pull over to the side of the road as she was “shaking and unable to drive.”
The hostile work environment and bullying led to a crisis point during a meeting on 14 June 2021. While the meeting originally intended to discuss shop staffing, Ms. Barlow exercised a workplace right by making formal complaints about Ms. Doherty’s conduct. She alleged that her superior had provided “misleading information” and was sabotaging her ability to meet KPIs. Following this meeting, St. Vincent de Paul Society’s HR manager started a process the court later described as a “concoction.”
On 12 July 2021, Ms. Barlow was stood down pending an investigation into allegations that she had moved staff without authorisation and solicited complaints from others. Ms. Barlow provided a 13-page response to the allegations. However, on 28 July 2021, St. Vincent de Paul Queensland’s CEO decided she would face termination of employment for serious misconduct. Ms. Barlow subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim.
In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Barlow argued that her employer had taken adverse action against her. This was because her termination of employment for serious misconduct was a direct result of the complaints she made. She contended that the misconduct allegations used to justify her summary dismissal were groundless. Ms. Barlow claimed that rather than soliciting complaints, she had sought support from colleagues. She claimed that the HR manager had “already made up her mind” before the formal investigation even began.
Ms. Barlow further alleged that the 12 July 2021 stand down was a tactical move to “break her spirit.” She argued that the HR manager deliberately cut off her access to work emails and colleagues to prevent her from gathering evidence that would prove she was being bullied by Ms. Doherty. Ms. Barlow also claimed that the HR representative had provided her with “vague and shifting” allegations that made it impossible to defend herself properly. She described her termination letter as a “dagger in the heart.”
In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, St. Vincent de Paul Society denied it had taken adverse action against Ms. Barlow. The organisation argued that Ms. Barlow had been dismissed due to its genuine loss of confidence in her leadership. St. Vincent de Paul Society relied on 23 allegations of misconduct. This included claims that she was insubordinate, failed to follow directions and performed poorly during a store audit. The charity also contended that Ms. Barlow had “solicited” complaints from other staff to undermine her superiors.
It argued that her grievances were merely a “smokescreen” created to shield herself from an impending performance management process. St. Vincent de Paul Society’s main defence rested on the “innocent” state of mind of the CEO. It was argued that as the sole decision-maker, he held no “prohibited reason” for the dismissal and was unaware of Ms. Barlow’s prior bullying complaints. The charity maintained that the termination of employment followed a fair process where Ms. Barlow was given a genuine opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Ms. Barlow’s Fair Work general protections claim was first heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in February 2025. It found that St. Vincent de Paul Society had taken adverse action against her. The court labelled the allegations the employer made against Ms. Barlow as a “concoction.” It also called the investigation into the allegations a “sham.” Rather than a genuine inquiry into serious misconduct, the court described the investigation as a “veneer” designed to hide the true reason for dismissal.
It said that the HR manager had “hoodwinked” the “unwitting” CEO. She had presented him with a briefing that stripped away the context of Ms Barlow’s 14 June 2021 complaints. By doing so, she made Ms. Barlow appear purely insubordinate. This led the CEO to sign the termination of employment letter without independent review. The court said that the serious misconduct dismissal was due to the HR manager’s “blatant exercise in deception.” It described her as the “operative” mind behind the dismissal, which was done for a prohibited reason.
In March 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia decided on the compensation to be awarded to Ms. Barlow due to the adverse action. She sought over $1 million, which included damages for past and future economic loss. The court considered evidence from several medical experts regarding Ms. Barlow’s capacity to return to work. One doctor testified that she had depression and anxiety, and that the court case had exacerbated her “tumultuous” mental health struggles. He said that she was not in a fit state to work but hoped for improvement over the following “3-6 months.”
St. Vincent de Paul Society sought to limit compensation by arguing that Ms. Barlow’s psychological injury was a pre-existing condition. The organisation noted that she had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety just two days before her termination of employment. It argued that her dismissal was not the cause of her incapacity. Rather, it was due to prior workplace stress and her own “subjective perception” of bullying and a hostile work environment.
During the Fair Work general protections proceedings, the court highlighted Ms. Barlow’s credibility as a witness. Under cross-examination, she denied having refused a request from St. Vincent de Paul Society to be examined by another psychiatrist. However, the court noted a letter from Ms. Barlow’s legal team saying that they had received instructions from her to refuse the request.
The court concluded that Ms. Barlow had given “false evidence” and had “deliberately misled” proceedings. It also described her as possessing a “belligerence” and being “extremely aggressive” while giving evidence. The court noted that the opinion of her psychiatrist relied on Ms. Barlow’s own self-reporting. It was therefore “very difficult” to put much faith in his opinion that there was “simply no hope” for Ms. Barlow to work again.
Despite Ms. Barlow’s credibility issues, the Federal Circuit and Family Court ruled that the unlawful termination acted as the “last straw” for her mental health. It accepted that her psychological injury was already serious at the time of dismissal. However, the firing caused an “acute aggravation” and made her feel like “the bad guys had won.” This led Ms. Barlow to feel “utterly devastated and defeated.”
The court concluded that Ms. Barlow’s mental health struggles were “front of mind” for her due to involvement in the legal proceedings. However, it said that they were “not chronic” and would dissipate as the legal battle came to an end.
Given these findings, the Federal Circuit and Family Court ordered St. Vincent de Paul Society to pay Ms. Barlow a total of $599,354.06 for past and future economic loss. This figure included a 100% award for loss up to 30 June 2023, which then tapered down to 10% by 30 June 2029. This sliding scale was designed to reflect the “dissipating effect” of Ms. Barlow’s termination of employment over time.
In addition to economic loss, the court awarded $50,000 in general damages for emotional harm. It accepted that the actions of the employer had caused “genuine distress” and a “grave” injustice. Further sums were awarded for incidental costs and psychiatric consultations, totaling around $5,200. The court also agreed that a further allowance should be made for “additional taxation payable” due to the receipt of a substantial lump sum. It directed the parties to make further submissions on this point.
Finally, the Federal Circuit and Family Court addressed the issue of pecuniary penalties against St. Vincent de Paul Society. Ms. Barlow had sought the maximum penalty of $63,000, arguing the prior bullying was part of the contravention. However, the court said that this “erroneous assumption” was legally and factually incorrect as the case focused strictly on the termination of employment. However, it emphasised that the purpose of a penalty is deterrence.
The court imposed a $25,000 penalty against the St. Vincent de Paul Society. It cited High Court precedents, stating that a penalty must have a “sting or burden” to be effective. The court found that a $25,000 fine struck a “reasonable balance” between the severity of the employer’s Fair Work general protections contravention and the need for deterrence. The penalty was ordered to be paid directly to Ms. Barlow. With the addition of superannuation and potential tax adjustments, the total value of the judgment is estimated to exceed $670,000.
Read more: The HR Manager from Hell and $37M Fraud that Led to Dismissal
As this case demonstrates, even large charitable organisations are not above the law when it comes to unlawful terminations of employment. If you believe you have been a victim of an unlawful termination or have been targeted for raising concerns about a hostile work environment, we can help.
Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assists employees nationwide with unfair dismissal, general protections claims and forced resignation matters. We have a track record of holding employers to account and ensuring workers receive the compensation they deserve. Strict 21-day deadlines apply for Fair Work claims, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential consultation.
