- calendar_today September 3, 2025
Australia’s biggest bank was recently forced to issue a very public climbdown. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has had to reinstate 45 employees after a major dispute over their alleged job “redundancy.” The reversal comes after a tribunal challenge by the Finance Sector Union (FSU), which accused CBA of misleading both staff and the public about the effect of its chatbot.
In recent months, dozens of long-serving employees at CBA were suddenly informed that their positions were no longer required. CBA said this was because a newly-launched AI-powered “voice bot” had been handling some of the work and reduced incoming calls by some 2,000 per week. As a result, the bank claimed, it no longer needed to employ as many human staff. Some of those informed of their redundancies had served CBA for decades, according to a recent union statement.
Yet the explanation from CBA has since been widely challenged. Employees said incoming call volumes were not, in fact, in decline and argued they had been increasing at the time when the redundancy notices were issued. In fact, management had reportedly been urging managers to take calls and offering overtime to staff to manage demand.
The issue was eventually taken to a fair work tribunal. The FSU argued that CBA had failed to adequately explain why the roles had been declared redundant. It also claimed that CBA was outsourcing some roles to India, pointing to apparent hires there at the same time as the layoffs in Australia. Taken together, FSU alleged, this “created the impression that the chatbot was a ruse to hide the offshoring.”
In evidence to the tribunal, CBA admitted a significant error. Bank officials confirmed they had underestimated a continuing rise in call volumes. In particular, there was a sharp increase in the period when the redundancies were made, which contradicted the reasons given for the layoffs. In a statement to the tribunal, CBA said, “This error meant the roles were not redundant.”
As a result, the bank offered an apology to the staff involved and agreed the 45 former employees could either return to their previous jobs, apply for other roles, or receive an ex gratia payment. “We have apologized to the employees concerned and acknowledge we should have been more thorough in our assessment of the roles required,” a spokesperson told Bloomberg.
The FSU said the victory by the union showed its members how the jobs should have been handled. However, the FSU also pointed out that the work to find this outcome left a trail of damage. For many of the 45 employees, there were several weeks of confusion and stress. Many went without pay and struggled to meet their usual bills. The case, the union said, was a warning about how employers may make such decisions without thinking about their impact on employees.
CBA has so far not indicated that this is slowing its plans to deploy AI. In fact, the bank has been accelerating into technology. In the past week, it announced a new partnership with OpenAI. The deal will see CBA work with OpenAI on new “advanced generative AI tools” to enhance scam detection and improve fraud prevention. It will also use the new collaboration to “deliver better experiences for customers.” However, among the staff affected by the case, there is likely to be considerable suspicion about why the bank is so eager to automate.
The CBA case is just the latest in what is an industry-wide reorganization. Banks globally could shed as many as 200,000 jobs over the next three to five years, estimates Bloomberg Intelligence. Artificial intelligence is expected to automate swathes of middle office, back office, and operations functions. AI is expected to help banks save money and cut costs. The CBA case suggests that employers need to take a lot more care in making changes without alienating staff and customers.
The 45 workers at the center of the dispute are now being given the option to return to their former positions. The FSU still expects many will refuse the offer. They have been badly affected by the case and say their trust in management has been damaged beyond repair. “The damage has already been done,” it stated. The case also provides an object lesson for other workers. Change can happen rapidly, and no employee is invulnerable to the forces of automation and restructuring.
The union has also said that while this battle is over, another will soon commence. It has confirmed it is launching a separate case with the Fair Work Commission, once again over the bank’s use of AI. The focus this time is on the employer’s obligations to consult with staff about the technology. Whether this will further curtail CBA’s use of AI remains to be seen. For now, however, it seems clear that the road to AI-driven banking is going to be a lot bumpier than the bank would have liked.
