antitrust-law competition
If a Bank Employer directs me to have my salary paid only into one of their accounts, is that Third Line Forcing?
<p>I joined a new job at a Bank, and when filling out the forms, one of the policy documents stated that I had to open an account with them and have my pay paid into that. </p>

<p>I told this to a friend when a legal background, and they said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>They can't do that, that's Third line forcing. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>By <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_line_forcing" rel="nofollow">Third Line Forcing</a>, she meant an anti-competitive practice where the supply of goods and services is conditional on the purchase of good from a third party. </p>

<p>Australian Law calls this <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/exclusive-dealing" rel="nofollow">Exclusive Dealing</a>. Acts of this nature are <a href="http://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/law/ed.html" rel="nofollow">prohibited</a> under s47 of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/" rel="nofollow">Competition and Consumer Act</a> 2010. </p>

<p>(I can't find a reference for the equivalent UK or US statutes). </p>

<p>My question is: <strong>If a Bank Employer directs me to have my salary paid only into one of their accounts, is that Third Line Forcing?</strong></p>

<p>Unfortunately, s47 of the Act applies only to the supply of goods and services - that is, where you purchase something from a business or person.</p>

<p>This means that because you are being required to have your salary paid into an account with that bank <em>as part of your employment contract</em>, it's unlikely that this would apply.</p>

<p>My understanding is that banks will generally provide an account free of charge - it is unlikely that damages are recoverable (because there are none).</p>

<p>From conversations with bank employees, the reason is that using a different bank means you might be put under strong pressure by a competitor of your employer, which isn't a good idea. </p>

<p>However, in the cases that I knew of, employees would get considerable better conditions than the general public would. </p>

<p>Anti-competitive: Ask yourself, what percentage of the Australian population would be affected by this? </p>
