‘We have apologised to…’: Australia’s biggest bank decides not to replace human jobs with AI

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has reversed its decision to eliminate 45 customer service jobs with AI. This comes after the bank faced pressure from the country's leading financial services union. The bank reportedly had planned to cut the roles due to the implementation of new AI technology. According to a report by Bloomberg, the Finance Sector Union even took CBA to a workplace relations tribunal, claiming that the bank was not being transparent about call volumes. CBA claimed its voice bot reduced calls by 2,000 per week. However, the union argued that as call volumes were increasing, it became necessary for the bank to offer overtime to its staff and have team leaders answer calls, the report claims. In a statement, a CBA spokesperson said: “We have apologised to the employees concerned and acknowledge we should have been more thorough in our assessment of the roles required.”The spokesperson noted that CBA’s initial assessment that the roles were not required “did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations, and this error meant the roles were not redundant.”The spokesperson also highlighted that affected employees have been given the option to stay in their current roles, apply for other positions, or exit the company.CBA CEO Matt Comyn has been leading efforts to expand the use of technology in Australia’s banking sector, and earlier this month the firm announced a partnership with OpenAI to introduce advanced AI tools for its customers and staff. Meanwhile, banks globally are assessing the role of AI and how it may affect employment.According to a Bloomberg Intelligence report released at the beginning of the year, global banks could cut up to 200,000 jobs over the next three to five years as AI takes on responsibilities currently handled by human workers. The report noted that back office, middle office, and operations roles are most exposed.The union described the reversal of job cuts as a “significant win” for its members. In its case before the tribunal, the union argued that CBA did not clarify how redundancy decisions were made and pointed out that the bank was hiring for similar roles with messaging responsibilities in India.