Staff reject CBA’s return-to-office ‘edict’

The Commonwealth Bank has directed staff to work in the office at least 50 per cent, sparking anger from the ­Finance Sector Union.

Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano. Picture: Hollie Adams

The Commonwealth Bank has ­directed employees to work in the office at least 50 per cent of the time instead of working from home, sparking anger from the ­Finance Sector Union, which claimed that the bank’s “edict” ­had breached their enterprise agreement.

A bank spokesman said from mid-July CBA wanted office-based employees to come into the office for at least 50 per cent of their working time over the month.

FSU national secretary Julia Angrisano said CBA employees had complained to the union that mandating a return to the office would force them to spend more money on commuting and childcare and interfere with their family life. They would also lose at least two to three hours a day travelling to and from work.

“Some workers are so unhappy about the CBA edict that they are considering whether to resign and seek other, more flexible working arrangements,” she said.

The union has lodged a dispute with the Fair Work Commission and will ask the tribunal to order the bank to offer all affected staff remote working arrangements on “mutually agreeable terms”.

The bank said more than 15,000 employees in customer serving roles worked in branches and offices while non-customer facing roles began to return to the office 18 months ago.

“Flexible working options remain available, as they always have, and we’ll continue to give consideration to our people who require more tailored arrangements to suit their individual circumstances and in line with our enterprise agreement obli­gations,” it said.

“In response to a request by the FSU to discuss hybrid working, we met with the union last month and it was a cordial discussion.

“The FSU representatives raised a number of issues which we have considered and we’ve ­provided a written response to the union.

“CBA respects and adheres to the terms of our 2020 enterprise agreement and those matters that require consultation.”

Meanwhile, BHP is pursuing a High Court challenge to a Federal Court decision that companies cannot automatically roster workers on a public holiday and must ask them if they wanted to work.

BHP’s Operation Services was found to have breached the Fair Work Act by requiring 85 employees in central Queensland to work on Christmas Day and Boxing Day in 2019.

A BHP spokesperson confirmed the company had filed a special leave application with the High Court

“BHP’s Operations Services team provides stable, secure, permanent jobs for more than 4000 people who deliver maintenance and production services to our mining operations across Australia,” the spokesperson said. “In addition to being ­permanent, well paid positions above relevant awards, these roles come with a package of additional benefits including annual, sick and parental leave, annual ­performance bonuses and access to BHP’s employee share scheme.”

Tony Maher of the CFMEU

Mining and Energy Union ­national president Tony Maher said the decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court that employers could request but not require employees to work on public holidays was an important win.

“It has already led to changes in the way public holidays are ­rostered and paid in the mining ­industry and led to a $430m ­underpayment by BHP being identified,” Mr Maher said.

“We believe the Full Court determined the issue in a way that meets legal requirements under the National Employment Standards and community expectations about the significant role of public holidays in family and community life.

“If BHP is granted leave to ­appeal, we look forward to defending the decision in the High Court.”