Banco Bpm, union-company conciliation: all the clarifications from First Cisl, Fisac ​​Cgil and Uilca Uil

Banco Bpm, union-company conciliation: all the clarifications from First Cisl, Fisac ​​Cgil and Uilca

Dear AFFARI ITALIANI (online newspaper),

following the hearing of 5 September 2024 held before the Labour Court of Milan and concluded with the conciliation between the current Confederal Trade Union Organisations and Banco BPM through which it was achieved – as a result of an activity explicitly requested by the Judge to the defendant Bank – to no longer make the press release of 1 July 2024 visible from the electronic notice board or in any other context where it is displayed, as well as to the invitation (also) to the same defendant Bank to reopen the negotiating table without delay in compliance with the prerogatives of the parties involved, with the mere hope that all the trade union organisations of Banco BPM will adhere to it, we are reluctantly required to take note of the very serious misrepresentation of the content of the reported minutes which was unexpectedly the subject of the article published on 5 September through a clearly misleading and unreliable interpretation which imposes (without prejudice to further actions which we reserve the right to initiate in the unfortunate event of a failure to act) (i.e. the publication of this request for rectification (and related denial) whose objective coincides exclusively with the need to report to readers the objective and unequivocal truth of the facts (which is also documented).

In this regard, the joint appeal filed by the confederal trade unions (which, as is known, represent over 60% of the Banco BPM employees registered with trade unions) aimed to remove the harmful effects of the anti-union conduct (also considered discriminatory) which became evident precisely with the communication of 1 July 2024, with respect to which the Labour Judge of Milan requested a substantial removal (albeit with a view to easing the complaints raised by the trade unions).

And in inviting the Bank to reopen the negotiating table without delay, he clarified that this should happen in compliance with the prerogatives of each of the parties involved, merely hoping for the adhesion of all the trade union organizations of Banco BPM but, certainly, not inviting anyone to any behavior in this direction.

Well, while maintaining the conciliatory spirit, the outcome achieved certainly appears to be in line with the cancellation of the conduct deemed anti-union, fully preserving the choice of the Trade Unions to negotiate jointly and/or separately.

And beyond the fact that attempting to distort a conciliation report (also proposed by a Judicial Body) in a poorly disguised and completely artificial manner is very serious, it is even more serious to report an interpretation that is totally at odds with what actually happened.

In this direction, it is requested pursuant to Law 47 of 8 February 1948 (and subsequent amendments and additions) that the denial of the news which is the subject of the article entitled “Banco Bpm, the judge recomposes the union table: peace made in Piazza Meda” be published, where it is reported that: “The magistrates reunite the unions of Piazza Meda in a single front: First Cisl, Fisac ​​Cgil and Uilca with Fabi and Unisin” (subtitle) and that “it was the Milanese court, in fact, that recomposed the single union table in Piazza Meda, putting together First Cisl, Fisac ​​Cgil and Uilca with Fabi and Unisin, creating a precedent in labour law of great importance.” (and this is because there is no claim or invitation from the judge in this sense, nor any recomposition effect of the unitary table as a consequence of the conciliation minutes, since – on the contrary – the confederal trade union organisations maintain in full all the prerogatives recognised to them and reaffirmed also judicially);

“Even in the presence of a conciliation, the bank won by a landslide. But, above all, a legal precedent was created that will represent, not only in the banking sector, an unbreakable principle and will regulate the relationships between confederal and autonomous unions” (and this is because the conciliation outcome, evidently clarifies, on the contrary, the validity of the union request – even if recognized from a conciliatory perspective – in the part in which it revealed the anti-union nature of the conduct, also confirmed by the company communication, finally removed, of 1.7.2024 and was further substantiated in the judge’s invitation to the Bank to resume negotiations without delay, and finally because, contrary to what was stated, it is an undisputed jurisprudential opinion – as well as a constitutionally recognized right – that each party has full autonomy of negotiation without impacting on any union relationship and without the conciliation outcome representing any legal principle of regulatory reference).

It is requested that denials and corrections be published within two days of the request, at the top of the page and placed on the same page of the newspaper that reported the news to which they refer.

Pending a timely response, reserving the outcome of each initiative, we send our best regards

Milan, 07/09/2024

COORDINATION GROUP BANCO BPM FIRST CISL – FISAC/CGIL – UILCA UIL