You can’t trust HR: Manager’s ‘deception’ leads to unfair dismissal

Many employees throughout their employment will question, ‘Can I trust HR?’. Human Resources can help resolve disputes amongst employees and be a source of answers. However, they are ultimately for the benefit of the employer, not the employee.

A federal court has found a HR manager “concocted” allegations against a Queensland worker to get her dismissed. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia described the allegations as a “sham,”. Ruling that the HR manager had taken adverse action against the worker.

This adverse action case – Barlow v St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland [2025] – is a stern reminder that HR teams are not often on your side. They may profess that they are looking out for the interests of you and your colleagues. But in many cases, their number one priority is to protect the interests of the company. And sometimes, like in the aforementioned case, they may act on personal vendettas to get workers dismissed.

In this article, we look at the events of this case to explain how the HR manager decided to unlawfully get rid of the worker. We also look at a story of a cleaner who was fired for calling her HR manager a “HR Covid C***.” Finally, we end with the case of a HR manager who was fired for harassing a junior colleague, telling her that he liked “very young” girls.

HR manager’s ‘blatant deception’ uncovered in adverse action trial

Shannon Barlow began working for St Vincent de Paul Society Queensland in 2019 as a retail operations manager. Forty-seven years old at the time, her role required overseeing 23 Vinnies stores across a large geographical area of Queensland. The role required managing over 29 staff as well as volunteers. 

Between May and September 2019, Ms. Barlow had weekly meetings with her managers. She complained to St Vincent de Paul that one of the managers yelled and screamed at her. She claimed that he said “I don’t want you in my store. I want you back in your office in the big girl chair.” Ms. Barlow also claimed that the manager told a colleague that she was only hired because she was “the best of a bad bunch.”

Court recognised worker’s challenges

These negative interactions between Ms. Barlow and her manager increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. When travel restrictions made direct oversight challenging. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recognized the challenges she faced in managing “such a diverse area of operation.”

It said that this required a “realistic appreciation” from senior management that she couldn’t be “everywhere at once.” It said that there was a “lack of appreciation” from management as to the hardships she faced. The Court said that she could not “simultaneously be onsite at every venue” to make sure that all of her directives were carried out.

Employee could not trust HR, leading to her dismissal

In July 2021, Ms. Barlow was invited to a meeting with her manager and St Vincent de Paul’s Queensland HR manager. The Court found that Ms. Barlow raised further issues in this meeting that “angered” the HR manager. Shortley after this meeting, Ms. Barlow conducted an audit of the Bundaberg store which found a number of issues. The Court found that the HR manager “erroneously” tried to paint these issues as a product of Ms. Barlow’s poor performance.

It said that the HR manager used the audit report as “ammunition” to accuse Ms. Barlow of serious misconduct warranting dismissal. She was subsequently placed on suspension and provided with 23 accusations. After a meeting, in which Ms. Barlow provided a response to the accusations, the HR manager told St Vincent de Paul’s CEO that she should be dismissed. The CEO took just eight minutes to greenlight the termination, sacking her on 28 July 2021.

Court found HR manager misrepresented worker

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia highlighted the fact that the CEO did not even read Ms Barlow’s response to her accusations. It also noted that the HR manager “misrepresented” Ms Barlow’s responses to the accusations. The Court noted that the HR manager lied and to the CEO in telling him that Ms Barlow admitted to violating St Vincent de Paul’s enterprise agreement.

It said that Ms. Barlow had “consistently rejected” the accusations made against her. She had also been “transparent” about certain employees under her supervision not performing certain duties. However, the Court said that Ms. Barlow had mentioned this in the context of the difficulties she faced in her job. She said that her manager had not permitted her to physically visit multiple stores.

The Court also noted that Ms. Barlow had explained to the HR manager that “she had done her best” to ensure duties were performed at stores. This included talking to store managers to emphasize the importance of performing certain duties. The HR manager could not be trusted to conduct a truthful or fair investigation.

HR manager wanted worker dismissed

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that the HR manager had “already made up her mind” about dismissing Ms. Barlow prior to the July 2021 meeting discussing her accusations. It recognized that none of the accusations were proven by St Vincent de Paul. The Court said that the HR manager would have known that the accusations “lacked substance” when she wrote them in a letter to Ms. Barlow.

It was accepted that the HR manager should have recognized Ms. Barlow’s “reasonable explanations” as to why certain duties were not performed at stores. The Court said that the HR manager continued to “press” her about why they had not been done. It said that the HR manager engaged in “blatant…deception” to make it seem like Ms. Barlow was given a fair hearing by St Vincent de Paul prior to her dismissal. However, this was all smoke and mirrors as the HR manager had already decided that she needed to be sacked.

Court reveals reason HR manager wanted worker gone

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia said that the HR manager wanted to dismiss Ms Barlow as she had exercised a workplace right. Namely, by raising further accusations against her manager during the June 2021 meeting. The Court concluded that St Vincent de Paul’s investigation into Ms Barlow’s accusations was “a sham.” It said that the investigation intended to give the “impression” that Ms Barlow was afforded procedural fairness.

It said that it was all a “veneer” to cover up the HR manager’s prior determined decision to sack her because she had complained about her manager. The Court said she was simply “going through the motions” and that the CEO was “an unwitting participant in the sham.”

Court finds adverse action took place

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ultimately found that St Vincent de Paul had taken adverse action against Ms. Barlow. Specifically, for raising further complaints about her manager in the July 2021 meeting. The Court concluded that the HR manager had “concocted” accusations against Ms. Barlow and was fully aware that they were “groundless.” This was all to get her dismissed for serious misconduct. 

The Court said that it would determine compensation for Ms. Barlow based on a further conference between the parties.

Worker fired for saving colleague in phone as ‘HR Covid C***’

This story of an employee getting revenge on HR made the media rounds in February 2025. It involved an Irish cleaner, Anita Swan, who had been working for Office and Industrial Cleaning Limited since May 2020. She lodged a claim with the Irish Workplace Relations Commission arguing that she had been adverse

In May 2024, Ms Swan accidentally included a screenshot of a text conversation with a HR manager in an email to the HR department. The screenshot revealed that Ms Swan had saved the manager’s name in her phone as “HR Covid C***.” Following this discovery, a client services manager lodged a complaint against Ms Swan. They alleged that she had displayed aggressive and disrespectful behaviour towards her supervisor. This included the use of inappropriate language in the presence of colleagues.

Other complaints came to light

The supervisor subsequently reported that she felt threatened by Ms Swan. A client of Office and Industrial Cleaning Limited also complained about her conduct at work. This included that she had taken unauthorised cigarette breaks, raised her voice and used her phone during working hours.

Ms Swan was suspended with pay while the company conducted an investigation into the complaints. Following a disciplinary hearing, in July 2024 she was given a written warning for misconduct and aggressive behaviour.

Cleaner argued she was constructively dismissed

Ms Swan appealed the disciplinary action. However, she declined to attend the appeal hearing as she was not permitted to have her solicitor present as a representative. She later resigned due to the “ill treatment” she had received.

Ms Swan later then lodged an unfair dismissal claim with Ireland’s Workplace Relations Commission. She argued that she had been forced to resign and had been denied procedural fairness. Ms Swan also alleged that Office and Industrial Cleaning Limited had been monitoring her movements after she had filed a personal injury claim. This claim was made after she was assaulted by the security guard.

The unfair dismissal hearing did not end well for Ms Swan, however. The Workplace Relations Commission found that there was no evidence that Office and Industrial Cleaning Limited had acted unreasonably. 

HR manager cant be trusted around junior employer on LinkedIn

This story, which made headlines in July 2023, comes to us from New Zealand. It involved a HR manager who commenced working for a New Zealand manufacturing company in July 2020. The manager made an unfair dismissal claim with New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority following his sacking in January 2023.

The HR manager, whose name was suppressed in his unfair dismissal hearing, was fired for sending inappropriate message via LinkedIn. They were sent to a junior female colleague, known as Ms. A, who worked at the manufacturing firm’s parent company in Australia. She claimed that the messages started off innocently, with the duo sharing “banter.” However, it soon ventured into the inappropriate.

HR manager said he liked “very young” girls

Ms A told the Employment Relations Authority that the HR manager told her that he knew she had boyfriend. She was asked “if you didn’t, would it be different between us?” She also claimed that the HR manager sent her a photo of herself as a 17-year-old. He messaged her that she was a “cutie” and asked “were you active.” He then messaged her that he had always been “into girls from a very young age.”

Despite Ms A requesting personal space, the HR manager continued to message her. She eventually asked him to stop contacting her on LinkedIn as she felt harassed. His response was “noted.” However, he continued to message her about his personal life. Ms A also said he would regularly look at her LinkedIn profile, which she found “creepy.” Ms A ignored these messages and eventually blocked him on LinkedIn.

Worker defends against complaint

In November 2023, Ms A complained about the HR manager’s constant messages. The complained eventually made its way to him via a letter detailing allegations of harassment. The letter stated that his messages were “inappropriate, unprofessional, and of a sexual nature.”

The following day, the HR manager provided his employer with a lengthy response, arguing that his relationship with Ms A was one of friendship. He denied that his comments had any romantic intent. He claimed that his question about her being “active” was in reference to dating rather than anything inappropriate.

The HR manager also said that his reference about liking young girls was based on kissing rather than sex. He suggested that Ms A could have blocked him on LinkedIn at any point if she had been uncomfortable.

Gets dismissed

The HR manager’s employer conducted an investigation into his alleged misconduct. During the investigation, his wife provided a written statement supporting his claims. She asserted that his use of the word “cute” carried no specific significance, stating that “he uses it all the time.”

Despite his explanations, the HR manager’s employer concluded that his actions breached professional conduct standards. In January 2023, he was dismissed for not acting with “professional integrity” and for behaviour that amounted to “harassment.” 

Unfair dismissal claim thrown out

At the HR manager’s unfair dismissal hearing, the Employment Relations Authority acknowledged that there were minor procedural errors in the investigation. However, it determined that they did not result in unfair treatment.

The Authority found that the HR manager had been informed of the allegations against him and was given time to respond. It also found that his arguments were considered before the decision to terminate his employment was made. Ultimately, the Authority ruled that the HR manager had breached the company’s code of conduct. His unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.

Have you been unfairly dismissed?

Call A Whole New Approach on 1800 333 666 for a private and confidential discussion about your situation. With our help, you can contest your termination with the Fair Work Commission to gain reinstatement or compensation. Act fast, as you only have 21 days from the date of your dismissal to lodge a claim. We are not lawyers, we are leading workplace advisors, commentators and influencers.

Similar articles to: ‘Can I trust HR: Worker dismissed after sham allegations’

Biased Workplace Investigation how to respond

Unfair dismissal trust and confidence