Bank employees union rejects ABA ‘bad apple’ protocol
The key union representing bank employees has rejected the Australian Bankers' Association (ABA) employee conduct protocol as unfair and discriminatory.
In doing so, the union has called for an independent Government regulator to handle the issue.
The Finance Sector Union (FSU) said it was concerned about the new protocol because it will force applicants for jobs in banks and financial institutions to consent to background checks to see if they have been dismissed or resigned during investigations into their conduct in previous jobs.
Commenting on the protocol, FSU national secretary, Julia Angrisano said the union did not believe the policy would deliver procedural fairness to job applicants and there appeared to be no consistency about how the policy would be applied across the major banking organisations.
“This policy needs to be an interim measure until an independent regulator is established,” Angrisano said.
“A fair, government-regulated register of finance workers who have breached applicable laws is the only way to ensure that the right people are removed from the industry for the right reasons,” she said.
Angrisano said the FSU would continue to campaign for an independent government regulator with legislative underpinning and proper rights and protections for finance workers.
“We have told the banks, the ABA and other finance sector employers that the real problems in the industry stem from the breakdown in trust and confidence because of unfair targets and cost controls, not bad apples,” she said.
Angrisano said the union did not condone unethical or illegal conduct by finance sector employees but believed the new protocols contained nothing which would guarantee procedural fairness or natural justice.
“Our members simply don’t trust the industry to administer such a system fairly,” she said.
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
