Staffing concerns delay complaints resolution, TelstraSuper claims

In defence of a claim it breached internal dispute resolution protocols, TelstraSuper told a court that a number of complaints slipped through the 45-day deadline because of unavoidable staffing concerns.

In civil penalty proceedings before the Federal Court, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) alleged TelstraSuper failed to comply with internal dispute resolution (IDR) requirements with respect to 127 complaints received over an 18-month period.

Christopher Archibald KC, appearing for the regulator, told the court on Tuesday, 15 April, that TelstraSuper’s failure to properly resource the IDR processes meant the superannuation fund and its complaints team did not operate “fairly, efficiently and effectively”.

In response, TelstraSuper’s counsel, Nicholas De Young KC, said the leader of the complaints team regularly monitored the increasing complaints numbers and added resources, but unavoidable staffing movements made it difficult to meet the demands.

Prior to ASIC’s complaint period of December 2021 to May 2023, De Young said the team leader and a key employee, Ms A – a pseudonym created by HR Leader’s sister brand, Lawyers Weekly – discussed how to respond to the complaint numbers and resolved to “keep an eye on it”.

At some point in December 2021, the team leader recruited a complaints officer, Ms B, to be the third member of the team, but her employment lasted only until late January 2022.

While De Young made it clear TelstraSuper had “no criticisms” of this employee’s work in the context of the proceedings, he submitted Ms B was not “effective at her job” and this created a “setback in dealing with complaints in that early January 2022 period”.

Around this time, the number of complaints that had exceeded the 45-day deadline increased from three in October 2021 to 10 in both December 2021 and January 2022. A replacement was brought on in late February, but by that stage, another eight were resolved late.

In the following months, the team leader resolved to move an employee from the risks team into the complaints team to assist with the backlog created by Ms B and the time spent catching her replacement up to speed with the team’s processes.

By the time the risk team employee, Ms C, moved over, Ms A was diagnosed with an illness and took time off.

“[Ms C] was originally anticipated to be used as a surge resource to help clear the backlog and be another set of hands, but as things transpired with [Ms A’s] illness, [Ms C] essentially had to step in and cover her role rather than add to her role,” De Young said.

By August 2022, Ms A had returned, and the complaints team had further resources, allowing it to “get on top” of the demand.

Around this time, TelstraSuper had commissioned a report from KPMG and had implemented a number of recommendations to improve the complaints processes, including adding an additional resource who would review each of the complaints that came through and determine which ones could be resolved within five days.

De Young said the fact that TelstraSuper hired the external consultants would indicate to the court that it was an organisation “taking its compliance very seriously and carefully”.

“It is, with respect, the opposite of an organisation not acting honestly, efficiently and fairly in this regard,” De Young said.

While the numbers were “trending in the right direction”, De Young stressed the team leader did not stop adding resources and making reports to the board about its capacity to handle demand.

The matter is ongoing.