Employee sues bank for 'home intrusion' after being told to work from home permanently
| Last updated
According to the action obtained by the outlet, the bank giant refused to pay the financial planner over 20 years of redundancy pay after he refused to accept an entirely remote job in December 2021.
When the bank shut its retail financing planning arm, it offered the former worker, who was on AUD $134,000 (£74,916) a year, bonuses and a job at the new owner, insurance company AIA.
“As part of the sale of our financial planning business, the person concerned was offered a comparable role as a financial planner with the new owners but did not take up the position,” a Commonwealth Bank spokesperson told the Daily Mail.
Initially, the financial planner accepted the position as he felt he had no other option and said the bank would not give him his redundancy pay if he rejected the offer.
However, later he refused, as unlike Fifth Harmony, he did not want to work from home.
The man is seeking AUD $172,000 (£96,152) in redundancy pay, interest payments and civil penalties from CBA.
In the claim, the man said that his new position would be worse than his old job as working from home would be ‘an intrusion into [his] private home and life to which he did not consent as well as an intrusion into the lives of his family’.
“Not attending a workplace outside the home can lead to tensions with other family members,” he said.
He added that working from home is also isolating and could have ‘adverse health implications’.
The financial planner also said that his home had ‘insufficient space to incorporate a permanent and private home office’.
Furthermore, the claim also stated that by working from home, the man would not meet the financial services industry's confidentiality and privacy standards.
Additionally, there would be fewer opportunities to earn bonuses and limit his clients to 55 and under when most of his customers were retirees.
A CBA spokesman told the Australian Financial Review that ‘as part of the sale of our financial planning business [the planner] was offered a comparable role as a financial planner with the new owners but did not to take up the position’.
They added: “Given that he has now lodged court proceedings, which we intend to contest, we are unable to comment further at this stage.”