There is no basis whatsoever for what the reviewer has told you.  Basically, what that person is suggesting is parenthesis within parenthesis, and that is not rational; what Clive says is correct in that the bracket carries with it the demarcating effect of the comma, except in that omitting the commas is not a matter of preference; one or other, but not both, may be present.  Commas are used mainly to disambiguate, with the incidental effect of giving the reader pause; but this latter is not their primary application, except perhaps in poetry.  Commas are used, in simplest terms, to make clear which clauses belong with which.  It is a popular misconception that they are simply rhythmic devices, although that effect does arise naturally from them. 

The issue is really whether, if a sentence has a clause that needs brackets, the closing bracket should be taken to completely supplant any comma.  Generally it should because the parenthetic effect of the bracket is absolute, except in the case of litany (lists) where (did you see that?) separate items, some of which may or may not include brackets, still need to have commas so that the sense of their being a list is preserved and, of course, to make clear where and to what the parentheses belong.  For example, "cats, dogs (small), parrots, fish, monkeys... " Without commas here, the reader will not know if we mean small dogs or small parrots.  

So, in the case at hand there are two possibilities: "another job (listed in TOAD) which is..." or "another job, listed in TOAD, which is..."  Notice that the commas or brackets have here the effect of making it understood that we are not talking exclusively about jobs listed in TOAD, merely remarking aside that the job in question happens to be listed there. 

Regards,

Nathon.

This was the best reply.