The conduct of a bank branch manager and their bank sheds light on of one domain of Westpac, at its branch in Moonah, Hobart. The manager, referred to as 'G', and Westpac traded florid allegations of questionable conduct in a matter considered by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal of Tasmania in a ruling last week."Excessive work hours and conditions" and "significant work stressors" lead a catalogue of grievances by the manager of the bank's Moonah branch. He was seeking compensation from the bank "for psychological injury arising as a result of "multiple stressors at work."The manager also charged his employer with "multiple significant mortgage related errors" in relation to his own home loan.The counter-claims by Westpac on a person delegated with the responsibility at the time to manage a second branch on top of their normal duties hammers the reputation of one of their local chief representatives.This branch manager, the bank said, "accessed the bank's 'Service Online' profiles of some of his staff members, which gave him information about their financial situation", allegedly in support of his plans to pester one or more of them for a personal loan.This the manager in time did do, asking his principal subordinate for a loan to the tune of A$30,000.The bank added a charge of "misconduct [re] a missing amount of $22,000 [from the ATM], located at the worker's desk." G denied these and many other allegations, but based his claim for compensation, in part, on the bank having made the allegations at a time he was stressed because of his workload and personal matters.Westpac, in a letter, asserted that the manager's "conduct as a Westpac employee was unprofessional, unethical, inappropriate and completely unacceptable, and that [he] used his position to breach a number of Westpac codes, policies and processes for personal benefit."Westpac rejected "an alternative disciplinary sanction" proposed via the manager's solicitor the bank in early March, going on to advise "that the worker's employment was to be terminated immediately."Lucinda Wilkins, a commissioner of the Tribunal, held in a recent ruling that "there is a reasonable prospect of the employer succeeding in resisting liability in relation to this claim."