Terrified NAB banker’s email reveals how an ‘avalanche’ of tasks left him working 18-hour days. Then one unread seven-page policy cost him his unfair dismissal case
A National Australia Bank employee who worked gruelling hours managing a heavy workload has lost his unfair dismissal case after admitting he had never read a lengthy company policy document relevant to his role. Steven Knowles told Australia's Fair Work Commission that an overwhelming "avalanche" of tasks had left him working up to 18-hour days, but the tribunal found that his failure to familiarise himself with the seven-page policy undermined his case against the bank. The ruling highlights the tension between employees' claims of unmanageable workloads and employers' expectations that staff engage with formal compliance documents, regardless of time pressure.
Knowles' own emails, submitted as evidence, painted a picture of mounting strain as tasks piled up faster than he could complete them, contributing to punishing working hours. Despite this, the commission determined that his unfamiliarity with the seven-page policy was a decisive factor in NAB's decision to dismiss him, and it ultimately sided with the bank, rejecting his claim that the sacking was unfair. The case underscores how workplace tribunals can weigh procedural compliance heavily, even when an employee's excessive workload forms part of the wider context.
In short
- NAB banker Steven Knowles worked 18-hour days amid overwhelming workload
- He lost his unfair dismissal case after not reading a key policy
- Fair Work Commission sided with NAB despite his workload complaints
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
An employee working eighteen-hour days under an avalanche of tasks faces an unreasonable burden if expected to master a seven-page policy document amid such chaos. The employer's creation of unsustainable working conditions—through poor workload management—undercuts any claim that procedural compliance was genuinely feasible, and fairness demands that tribunals consider whether the dismissal was proportionate given the systemic mismanagement that preceded it. When employers overload staff to breaking point, they bear responsibility for enabling the very failures they later use as grounds for termination.
The case against
Employment law requires staff to familiarise themselves with relevant policies regardless of workload pressures, as these documents often cover critical compliance and conduct standards. A seven-page policy represents a reasonable expectation, and an employee cannot claim unfair dismissal whilst admitting they failed to meet this basic responsibility. To excuse non-compliance based on busyness would undermine workplace rules entirely; the appropriate response to excessive workload is to raise the matter through proper channels, not to ignore mandatory documentation.
Explained simply
Australia’s Fair Work Commission is the body that deals with many workplace disputes, including claims that a dismissal was unfair. National Australia Bank, usually called NAB, is one of Australia’s major banks, and Steven Knowles worked there in a role covered by a company policy.
The dispute centred on two issues: Knowles said his workload had become overwhelming, while the bank relied on his failure to read a seven-page policy relevant to his job. The commission considered the policy and his emails about long working hours when deciding whether his dismissal was unfair.
The case matters because it shows how a workplace tribunal can assess an employee’s circumstances alongside whether they followed rules tied to their role. Its decision turned on the evidence in this particular dispute.