CBA worker fired over alleged fraudulent transactions disputes sacking

A Commonwealth Bank Australia (CBA) employee has been granted the opportunity to challenge his dismissal by the Fair Work Commission despite filing the application 18 days late.

A Commonwealth Bank employee has sought to dispute the termination of his employment, claiming that the major bank unfairly dismissed him. The worker alleges that he was fired after raising two disputes pertaining to his personal bank account, which is assigned with CBA.

The worker claimed that he disputed two merchants that he did not recognise, one for $49.97 and another for $500, which consisted of multiple transactions. The first dispute of $49.97 was accepted and refunded, whereas the $500 dispute was rejected.

According to the worker, CBA accused him of making “false disputes in an attempt to gain financial benefit”. He claimed that he made these disputes purely as a customer of the bank – submitted that it had nothing to do with his ongoing employment.

“I acted in good faith based on information available to me at the time,” said the worker.

The CBA denied that it unfairly dismissed the worker, instead claiming that he was dismissed after an investigation process found that he had conducted serious misconduct by “lodging knowingly false debit or credit card transaction disputes in his capacity as a ‘customer’”.

In his statement, the worker alleged that a “double standard” was at play due to his status as an employee at the CBA.

“The grounds for my dismissal appear to be based on an assumption that I lodged certain transaction disputes for personal financial gain. I reject this implication entirely,” said the worker.

“If these disputes had been lodged by a non-employee customer, it is highly unlikely that the bank would have taken punitive action – let alone contacted the customer’s employer. The response in my case indicates a double standard applied to me as an employee, one that is not applied to the general public.

“Furthermore, if the bank believed the disputes were in error or improper, it had the opportunity to reverse the payments and address the issue via standard transactional correction processes.

“That did not happen. Instead, the matter was escalated directly to employment discipline and reporting, without affording me the same treatment or margin for error given to regular customers.”

When filing his application to the Fair Work Commission claiming he was unfairly dismissed, the worker submitted it 18 days past the 21-day time limit.

Because the worker’s dismissal comes from serious misconduct, it is unlikely that he would be employed again in the banking industry, meaning the result of his dismissal extends to his ongoing career prospects within the industry. The worker is also the sole income earner in his family.

The commission found that on the merit of the worker’s evidence and the potential ramifications a “serious misconduct” label could have on his career, he was granted an extension for his application.

The unfair dismissal case is therefore set to proceed.