A former head of research at Cancer Council Queensland has claimed she was unfairly terminated following conflicts with the organization’s chief executive, Matt Gardiner. This lawsuit adds to the challenges facing the charity, which has faced internal conflicts since the previous year.
Sandi Hayes, who served as the director of research, alleges that she experienced bullying from Gardiner, which led to a breakdown in their professional relationship to the extent that she was instructed to refrain from direct communication with him, as outlined in her legal complaint.
Cancer Council Queensland is contesting the allegations, stating that an internal investigation revealed no misconduct on Gardiner’s part. The organization contends that Hayes displayed hostility during a high-level meeting and was ultimately dismissed when their working relationship deteriorated to a point that posed a risk to their psychological well-being.
Founded in 1961, the charity plays a crucial role in supporting cancer patients, offering services such as counseling, accommodation, wig provision, and funding research focused on early cancer detection. Despite a challenging financial landscape reported in 2025, which included high employee turnover and internal dissatisfaction, the council recently announced improved financial performance and a record investment in research initiatives.
Gardiner, who has been in his role since February of last year, has refrained from giving interviews but stated through a press release that the Cancer Council Queensland is becoming more effective and influential in its mission to reduce cancer experiences among Queensland residents. He also noted that a small group of former employees has been spreading damaging rumors and unfounded allegations against him.
The Courier-Mail reported in October of last year on a series of staff departures and concerns raised by employees, with one individual expressing dissatisfaction over a perceived decline in emotional and psychosocial support services, which have historically defined the organization’s compassionate approach.
Recent developments reveal that Hayes’ lawsuit, filed in the Federal Circuit Court, not only accuses Gardiner of wrongful termination but also indicates she raised concerns about his conduct to board members and during virtual meetings. These concerns reportedly included discussions about Gardiner’s communication style and alleged integrity issues related to his interactions with another employee.
The defense asserts that Hayes’s grievances primarily related to Gardiner’s management style and his understanding of research, arguing that her complaints do not fall under workplace law protections. Both parties have put forth differing accounts of their professional disagreements, including disputes over budget planning and executive titles. One incident highlighted in the filings involved a staff member’s request to abstain from displaying a “Pride Month” message due to personal beliefs, which Gardiner denied, suggesting that employees should evaluate their personal values against the organization’s values.
As the situation escalated, Hayes faced several allegations concerning her behavior, particularly during an August meeting with senior executives. The defense claims that an internal investigation found her conduct to be disrespectful, particularly towards Gardiner, while also critiquing certain comments he made.
By October of last year, Hayes had alleged bullying and inappropriate actions by Gardiner and another colleague, as mentioned in her lawsuit. During that month, she was informed that any communications with Gardiner would need to be routed through the head of human resources, a measure taken based on medical advice to ensure both parties’ psychosocial safety.
Although mediation efforts were attempted, Hayes was ultimately dismissed in February due to the assertion that she could not collaborate with Gardiner without posing a health and safety risk. Both parties have opted not to comment further on the ongoing legal proceedings.
This internal conflict contrasts sharply with the charity’s positive public image, which includes community engagement events like the Relay for Life, where participants are seen enjoying their time for a good cause. Additionally, the organization reported increased service levels, including an 8.6% rise in accommodation bed nights and a 23% increase in financial counseling services.
Recent staff engagement scores also reflected a positive trend, achieving a “good” rating of 4.1 out of 5. However, sources familiar with the charity indicated that an internal review in February raised concerns about underlying issues within the organization.
