He blamed training, software and his workload - the Commission found valid reasons anyway
A Westpac home finance manager with nearly 20 years' service has lost his unfair dismissal case at the Fair Work Commission.
In a decision handed down on July 17, 2026, the Commission dismissed the worker's application, finding the bank had valid reasons to end his employment and had followed a fair process.
The worker had spent almost two decades at Westpac, most recently as a home finance manager at a Sydney branch. The bank dismissed him in September 2025 after an internal investigation examined how he handled loans and customer money.
It began when the bank's monitoring team flagged his lending. The Commission found that the bank had valid reasons for dismissal across three broad areas: accepting payments of $2,000 and $7,500 from two customers in connection with loan-related activity, several responsible-lending breaches, and unauthorised use of WhatsApp on his work phone.
On the payments, the Commission found on the balance of probabilities that he had accepted the money - the $7,500 paid into a company he owned - without declaring any conflict of interest. The worker denied wrongdoing. He said the sums were for tiles his son had sold, unrelated to any bank business, and called the suggestion he had taken cash in his office "highly objectionable." But he produced no reliable evidence for the tile account, and the Commission did not accept it, finding he was "left in the position of having no credible explanation" for the money.
On the responsible-lending allegations - missed document discrepancies, undisclosed dependants, and a loan purpose that did not line up - the worker pointed to a heavy workload, limited training, and difficult software. The Commission found he remained obliged to check documents carefully and was experienced enough to spot the problems. It accepted his age had affected his recall and contributed to his struggles with the bank's new systems, but not that this excused the breaches. One part of one allegation was found not to be a valid reason for dismissal; the rest stood.
The final allegations concerned using WhatsApp to message customers and receive identity documents on his work phone. He admitted using the app but said he had not known it was prohibited. The Commission found that was not credible from a long-serving employee trained on the bank's technology rules.
Much of the decision reads as a lesson in process. The worker said he was "blindsided" - given 24 hours' notice of the first meeting with no detail. The Commission found that reasonable, because the bank was entitled to secure its records before alerting him to an integrity investigation.
He also argued the process was rushed and predetermined, "a sham," and amounted to retaliation for raising "high level corruptions issues" as a "whistleblower." The Commission rejected that, finding his suspicions rested on office gossip rather than facts and did not make him a whistleblower.
He was offered a support person and declined. He was given several chances to respond and, at one point, extra time to seek legal advice. When he later asked for two more weeks, the bank refused - and the Commission found that fair, given the earlier opportunities.
One point lands squarely for HR teams. The worker chose not to call evidence from his wife or son that might have explained the payments, citing family privacy. The Commission found that choice "had consequences" and drew an adverse inference: the missing evidence likely would not have helped him.
Strong sales figures did not save him either. He argued he was a high performer, well above target. The bank agreed - and said that was part of why his conduct drew closer scrutiny, because his numbers sat outside the normal range.
The Commission found the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The reasons were valid, some of the conduct was serious, the process was fair, and dismissal was a proportionate response. The application was dismissed.
