Under mounting scrutiny after two staff suicides, NAB is facing searing allegations of bullying, punishing performance pressures and a deteriorating culture that legal experts say could test the limits of Australia’s workplace safety laws
NAB is facing intensifying scrutiny over its workplace culture after two employees died by suicide within weeks of each other, triggering investigations by workplace safety regulators and fresh allegations of bullying, excessive workloads and a “dehumanising” environment inside the lender.
The incidents – one at NAB’s Docklands headquarters in Melbourne in early March and another several weeks later involving a staff member from a separate team – have sparked public debate about how far employers’ legal obligations extend when it comes to psychological safety, and whether current frameworks risk compounding the trauma of already‑grieving families and colleagues.
Legal grey zones on work‑related suicides
Employment lawyer Melini Pillay, principal at McCabes, said the law is still catching up with community expectations about how employers should respond to staff suicides – and that the rules differ sharply across jurisdictions.
“In Victoria, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 does not require a business to notify of a death by suicide,” Pillay noted, in contrast with changes to the model Work Health and Safety laws that took effect in New South Wales on 5 December 2025, which make a work‑related or suspected work‑related death by suicide a notifiable incident.
She said that shift effectively reframes suicide as a potential workplace safety incident, inviting regulatory intervention and “greater scrutiny and reputational damage, where the risk of death may not have any other connection to the workplace”.
Pillay, who has advised on multiple cases involving workplace suicide, stresses the profound human cost.
“Dealing with workplace death by suicide is incredibly traumatic, on many levels. Having advised in several of these I can say that no one is immune to the impact,” she said.
While mental health is the most common contributing factor, suicides are typically the result of “more than one trigger”, she cautioned, and inquiries must be handled with care.
“While it is necessary and appropriate for all workplaces to review and consider the working circumstances of the individual and in some instances necessary for a coronial inquest, we must all remain careful not to create a perception of blame or need for an investigation that can result in more harm,” she said, pointing out that almost one in four suicide deaths in Australia are also linked to difficulties in familial or romantic relationships.
HR leaders on the frontline of a fast‑moving legal landscape
The NAB controversy comes as HR leaders across Australia grapple with rapidly evolving expectations around psychological health and safety.
“HR leaders face a genuine challenge in coming up to speed with safety obligations becoming an unavoidable part of their functionality,” Pillay said. She argued that many HR roles “were not originally designed with this level of safety accountability in mind”, yet regulators’ expectations – and their enforcement resources – have “certainly sharpened”.
Complicating matters further, she warns, is a saturated market of consultants and online commentators blurring the line between legal requirements, best practice and what is realistically achievable.
“In some cases, particularly on platforms like LinkedIn, obligations are overstated, misstated, or presented without proper nuance, leaving the reader at best confused or otherwise misinformed,” she said.
With economic headwinds building, Pillay predicts already stretched HR teams will face “more heavy lifting” and urges employers to be discerning about who they rely on for advice: “Regulators are unique.”
NAB's deteriorating culture
Against this shifting legal backdrop, former NAB staff say the bank’s culture has deteriorated over time, even as profits have climbed.
An ex-NAB employee reached out to HRD to discuss the culture shift at the bank, marked by rolling restructures, the loss of older but experienced staff and relentless performance pressure.
The employee, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “They keep restructuring, getting rid of older but experienced staff, performance targets keep going higher, and performance/productivity metrics keep getting lower,” the former employee said.
According to their account, unpaid extra hours became normalised – but paradoxically, staff who were caught working on days off were reprimanded rather than supported.
“A lot of my teammates were working extra hours, and on their days off, and if they were caught working then they were scolded,” they said.
Internal culture and manager‑review surveys did little to shift the dial, the ex‑employee alleges.
“The surveys we do for culture and manager review, it always points to it being shit but they don’t do anything – more like a ‘how dare you say it’s bad’ kind of reaction in the next team meeting.”
Bullying claims and “discouraged” collaboration
The former staffer said their own experience culminated in bullying by a manager that eventually drove them to “quiet quit” after nearly a decade at the bank.
“I was definitely bullied by my last manager (horrible person) to the point of me quiet quitting even after working there for 8 years because I didn’t want to put in the extra hours or cherry pick the tasks that would’ve rewarded me more productivity,” they said.
They described a system in which helping teammates counted against individual productivity scores, effectively discouraging collaboration.
“It got to the point where helping my teammates was bad for my productivity so it was discouraging collaboration or aid,” they recalled.
The ex‑employee also alleged public humiliation of underperforming staff.
“We’ve also seen other staff being yelled at in lunchrooms for performance in front of the whole floor and everyone could hear, and the girl being yelled at was crying.”
The bank’s ongoing offshoring program, they noted, has added to the strain.
“The continuous shift to offshoring jobs pressures everyone, and every time a restructure is being mentioned someone ends up crying.”
“NAB used to promote work‑life balance but it’s going in the opposite direction now despite continual net profit growths,” they said.
These claims echo earlier reports of NAB staff describing “dehumanising” workloads, excessive unpaid overtime and serious mental health impacts, including hospitalisation for stress‑related breakdowns.
A history of culture and compliance question marks
The current crisis has landed on a bank that was already under pressure over its record on culture and compliance. NAB has previously faced criticism and regulatory action over underpayment of staff and the treatment of customers, including hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation provisions following a major payroll review.
Sector‑wide, Australian banks have been hit with record fines in recent years, prompting regulators and investors to link poor culture directly to compliance failures.
At NAB, whistleblowers and union representatives have repeatedly pointed to long hours, aggressive performance management and a resistance to flexible work as systemic issues, even as the bank pledges a “speak up culture” in its public statements and policies.
Balancing accountability with compassion
For organisations now watching the NAB controversy unfold, Pillay said the key challenge is to balance regulatory compliance and genuine accountability with compassion and restraint.
“There are no single causes of suicide in Australia,” she emphasised. “Most are the result of more than one trigger, with mental health being the most common contributing factor. But these matters are complex.”
That complexity, she argues, should shape how employers, regulators and the public respond when tragedy strikes.
While it is “necessary and appropriate” to review working conditions and, where required, cooperate with coronial inquiries, Pillay warns against knee‑jerk blame and public finger‑pointing that may deepen the trauma for those closest to the deceased.
“No one needs the extra burden of guilt at such a difficult time,” she said.
What HR and leaders should do now
Experts say the events at NAB should serve as a wake‑up call across corporate Australia. With psychological safety now embedded in WHS frameworks, boards, executives and HR leaders are expected to treat mental health risks with the same seriousness as physical hazards.
In practice, that means:
- Ensuring bullying and performance management processes are fair, transparent and trauma‑informed
- Closely monitoring workloads, overtime and the cumulative impacts of restructures and offshoring
- Giving genuine weight to staff survey feedback, rather than dismissing critical responses
- Equipping HR teams with specialist safety expertise – or access to it – rather than leaving them to navigate complex legal obligations through LinkedIn commentary and generic training packages
As investigations into the recent suicides continue, NAB’s response will be closely watched – not only by regulators and investors, but by workers across the sector weighing up what kind of culture their employers are prepared to tolerate.
