A Fair Work decision has laid bare a bitter dispute between wellness company Bon Charge and its former chief marketing officer, after the business unsuccessfully sought costs over what it described as a ‘scandalous’ dossier of allegations.
Bon Charge, which sells wellness products aimed at improving sleep, recovery and beauty, is facing a raft of allegations levelled by ex-chief marketing officer Zoe Phillips-Price.
Founded by husband-and-wife team Andy and Katie Mant, who both featured on Forbes’ 40 Under 40 list, Bon Charge sells products including red light therapy panels and blue-light blocking glasses in 137 countries.
Now, the company could be headed for the Federal Court over a dispute centring on Ms Phillips-Price’s resignation in August 2025, which she alleges was actually a forced exit.
Ms Phillips-Price claims that she was pushed to resign due to ‘adverse omissions’, and ‘false and misleading statements’ about the role she had been hired to perform.
She further claims that Bon Charge had breached its contractual obligation to ‘provide a safe system of work’ and manage ‘psychosocial risks’.
According to the Fair Work Commission decision, Ms Phillips-Price claimed she was notified of her dismissal on August 28 last year and submitted her resignation the same day.
Zoe Phillips-Price claims she was pushed to resign from Bon Charge due to adverse omissions and ‘false and misleading statements’ about the role she had been employed to perform
Katie Mant and her husband were both included on Forbes’ Top 40 under 40 list in 2024.
Andy Mant founded Bon Charge alongside his wife, Katie, in 2017
In her resignation letter, Ms Phillips-Price outlined how the nature of her position had ‘materially and unilaterally changed’ to no longer reflect what was set out in her contract.
‘This is not a voluntary resignation in the ordinary sense but one compelled by the fact that the role of CMO no longer exists in substance, and therefore I cannot reasonably be expected to continue in it,’ her resignation said.
Just shy of 21 days later, Ms Phillips-Price engaged Harmers Workplace Lawyers to file a general protections claim with the Fair Work Commission.
The claim, titled ‘Circumstances which caused the Forced Resignation’, alleged that Ms Phillips-Price had raised several concerns about a lack of resources and support available to help her do her role, and the need for an additional team member.
According to Ms Phillips-Price’s lawyers, the failure by Bon Charge to act on these requests or address these concerns constituted ‘adverse omissions’ that injured her employment.
‘It is readily apparent that the Employer engaged in a course of conduct designed to result in the cessation of Ms Phillips-Price’s employment,’ the claim states, according to the published FWC decision.
‘Any effort by the Employer to say that it wished Ms Phillips-Price to continue working would not be genuine, and Ms Phillips-Price was being set up to fail.’
In preparation for the hearing, Ms Zoe compiled a dossier of evidence, including witness statements from six former employees, which Bon Charge later argued raised ‘at least 18 serious allegations’ about the conduct of the company’s directors and other employees.
The company could be headed for the Federal Court over a dispute centring on Ms Phillips-Price’s resignation in August 2025, which she alleges was actually a forced exitÂ
Bon Charge’s co-founders are husband and wife Andy and Katie Mant
Bon Charge’s biohacking products, such as red light face masks, are sold in 137 countries
The decision states that the evidence filed by Ms Phillips-Price included allegations of an unsafe workplace environment with frequent abusive communications, unreasonable hours, misrepresentations about the chief marketing officer role and systemic compliance issues within the business, including misleading advertising.
The ruling notes that the evidence also included emails and messages that did not involve Ms Phillips-Price, but which she included as ‘tendency evidence’.Â
However, according to lawyers acting for Bon Charge, much of the material was not relevant to Ms Phillips-Price’s departure, with the company arguing that only three paragraphs contained direct evidence relating to her stated reasons for resigning.
Upon receiving Ms Phillips-Price’s evidence, Bon Charge’s legal team wrote back requesting further explanation on what they were seeking to prove with the material.
However, Ms Phillips-Price’s legal team, led by the firm’s chairman, Michael Harmer, withdrew the claim before any hearing was able to take place.
In an eleventh-hour decision on Christmas Eve, counsel from Harmers served a notice of discontinuance, citing plans to escalate the matter to the Federal Court.
‘As the matter has progressed, including following the exchange of material and our own observations, the nature of the dispute and the legal issues requiring determination have become further apparent,’ the notice said.
‘In light of the above, we are instructed to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against the Respondents named in the Application.’
The last-minute withdrawal from the Fair Work proceedings then prompted Bon Charge to seek costs for the time spent reading and responding to the ‘scandalous allegations’ submitted in Ms Phillips-Price’s evidence.
Bon Charge’s lawyers claimed that 100 of the 182 paragraphs of evidence contained what they described as scandalous material. (Pictured:Â Bon Charge’s co-founder Katie Mant)
Bon Charge sells wellness products aimed at improving sleep, recovery and beauty (stock image posed by model)
Deputy President Cross found that Ms Phillips-Price’s failure to provide requested particulars was an ‘unreasonable act’, but said he was not satisfied it had caused any additional costs that would justify a costs order.Â
Bon Charge’s lawyers claimed that 100 of the 182 paragraphs of evidence contained what they described as scandalous material.
In their costs order, Bon Charge’s lawyers argued that reliance on the ‘alleged scandalous material’ was an ‘unreasonable act’ from the other side, which caused them to incur extra costs.
‘Their content was scandalous such that it was irrelevant to the Application and detrimental to the character of the Respondent’s directors and other employees,’ Bon Charge’s cost order argued.
They also argued that Ms Phillips-Price’s evidence did not establish that she was forced to resign or that the company had breached the general protections provisions.Â
Ultimately, the costs application was rejected by the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Bryce Cross finding the material Bon Charge had characterised as scandalous had some peripheral relevance to Ms Phillips-Price’s claim.
Deputy President Cross also rejected the argument that Ms Phillips-Price’s withdrawal showed that her legal team never intended to pursue the claim, stating that ‘it was far from clear at the time of filing’ that the application would fail.
Neither Bon Charge, Harmers Workplace Lawyers nor Ms Phillips-Price responded to the Daily Mail’s requests for comment or our questions about proceedings in the Federal Court, and the initial allegations remain untested.
