In June 2025, Commonwealth Bank of Australia switched on a voice bot on its customer enquiries line.
A month later, it told 45 people in that call centre their jobs were going.
The bank's reasoning was simple. The bot was taking the easy calls, so fewer calls were reaching people.
"By automating simple queries, our teams can focus on more complex customer queries that need empathy and experience," the bank said.
WHAT THE PHONES SAID
The people answering the phones told a different story.
Their union said calls were going up, not down. Managers were offering overtime. Team leaders were being pulled onto the phones.
The union took the bank to the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace tribunal.
THE U-TURN
On August 21, 2025, the bank backed down.
Its first assessment "did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations," it said, "and this error meant the roles were not redundant."
It apologised to the 45. Each one got a choice. Keep the job, move to another role in the bank, or leave with a payout.
"Workers want a tech-savvy bank," said Julia Angrisano, the union's national secretary, "but they expect to be part of the change, not replaced by it."
ONE YEAR LATER
The bank didn't slow down on AI.
By May 2026, its chatbot was closing almost nine in ten customer conversations with no person involved.
In July 2026, Bloomberg reported that hundreds of contractor chat roles had gone at an outsourced call centre in Johannesburg. The bank said it had added more than 140 people to its Australian contact centres since the start of the year.
WHAT I SEE
Last week I wrote about the last 20%. The documents AI isn't sure about, and the person who checks them.
Calls work the same way. A bot takes the easy ones first. The hard ones don't go away. They land on fewer people.
I sell automation for a living. I still think the bank's first call was wrong, and the bot wasn't the problem. They counted what the bot took and didn't count what came back to people.
The people on the phones knew the calls were going up. I'd ask them before I'd trust a dashboard.
ONE ASK
Has your company ever rolled back an automation after it went live?
Reply yes or no. A one-line story is a bonus.
Rushabh
In June 2025 the Commonwealth Bank switched on a voice bot on its enquiries line, and a month later it told 45 call-centre people their jobs were going because the easy calls were no longer reaching them. The people answering the phones, and their union, said the opposite was happening: calls were rising, overtime was being offered and team leaders were being pulled back onto the handsets, which is why the dispute went to the Fair Work Commission. On 21 August 2025 the bank reversed itself, saying the first assessment had not weighed every relevant business consideration and that the roles were not redundant, then gave each of the 45 a choice to stay, move inside the bank or leave with a payout. Julia Angrisano's line that workers want a tech-savvy bank but expect to be part of the change, not replaced by it, sits beside the later figures: by May 2026 the chatbot was closing almost nine in ten conversations with no person involved, even as the bank said it had added more than 140 people to its Australian contact centres, while Bloomberg reported hundreds of contractor chat roles gone in Johannesburg. Separating what the dashboard claimed from what the phones were actually doing keeps the argument honest, and the closing point lands cleanly: they counted what the bot took and did not count what came back to people. Work notes from an Australian town where long shifts still depend on human judgment are collected on my profile.
All my articles: https://lukeybkarratha.substack.com/archive
The line that matters is the one from the phones. The dashboard said calls were falling. The people answering them said calls were going up, and managers were offering overtime to cover it. The bank trusted the number, not the workers, and 45 people lost their jobs for a month. The bot took the easy calls and left the hard ones to people. Check what an agent really does in use, not what its score says. https://aideliverybrief.substack.com/p/singapores-new-test-kit-says-a-right