Because Bnl has been convicted again
What did the labor judge decide on Bnl. All the details
New judicial sentence for Bnl (Bnp Paribas group) headed by the managing director Elena Goitini (in the photo).
WHAT THE ROME LABOR JUDGE SUN BNL DECIDED
It is not only the Capgemini case that divides the unions and the banking company ( condemned in that case too ), now the Rome labor court has accepted the appeal of the unions and "declares the anti-union nature of the complained employer behavior and orders the cessation of such behavior by convening the meeting envisaged by art. 14 of the National Collective Labor Agreement applicable as requested by the trade unions”, reads the sentence (at the end of the full text).
THE HOPE OF THE UNIONS
The FABI – FIRST CISL – FISAC CGIL – UILCA – UNISIN coordination secretariats of the Bnl group underline: “On 5 August the labor judge condemned the BNL for anti-union conduct.
In fact, it agreed with the trade union organizations that denounced the company since, in contravention of the provisions of the national collective agreement, it did not grant the RRSSAAs of general management the six-monthly meeting. This umpteenth defeat of the bank before a judge, in addition to humiliating the top management, certifying how illegal many of the choices made in the bank are, confirms the total lack of vision on the part of those who are unable to find political solutions by collaborating with the workers' representatives . We consider this further pronouncement a victory, but a sad moment remains: one cannot rejoice when the employer, openly violating very sensitive provisions such as those concerning trade union freedoms, decides to act in complete illegality". The trade unions conclude with a wish: "In the hope that this further sad event may serve as a lesson and lead to a drastic change of course in the arrogance shown in BNL's choices, the trade union organizations confirm all their willingness to continue working on the research of the best solutions for the well-being of male and female workers and of the company”.
THE COMMENT OF FABI
Brought to court by Fabi and the other trade unions for violation of article 14 of the national collective labor agreement, i.e. the right of trade union organizations to request a six-monthly meeting with the institute for "problems relating to workloads and rhythms, organic, to the hygienic-environmental conditions where the work takes place and to the physical protection of the workers for the adoption of the measures deemed suitable in relation to what has been proposed”, the judge agreed with the unions and wrong with the Bnl. The Court of Rome, with a sentence of August 5, notes Fabi, "repealed the behavior of BNL Bnp Paribas, considering it a breach of contract to have denied the requested meeting at least on the part of the arguments that are peacefully included in the provisions contractual. According to the decision of the judge, the bank is therefore ordered to convene the meeting established by article 14 of the applicable National Collective Labor Agreement as requested by the appellant trade union organisations, within 30 days of notification of the provision; moreover, the bank must give suitable notice of the provision on the corporate website within the same term. Finally, the same judge sentenced BNL Bnp Paribas to pay the costs of 3500.00 euros plus general expenses 15%, VAT and Cpa as per law". “Disputes between the company and the unions cannot continue to be referred to a third judge. We must not always be able to settle trade union issues with a court ruling. A healthy industrial relations policy must know how to prevent and that's why we Fabis of BNL have long been asking for greater sharing, greater involvement in the company's programs and strategies”, underlines the Fabi coordinator at BNL Bnp Paribas, Fabio Armeni.
the words of DI VIGLIOTTI (UNISIN)
“Bnl collects convictions and the Union is convinced of its work, just as it is certain of the illegitimacy of many choices and operations adopted by the bank. In addition to the conviction for the transfer of an illicit branch to Capgemini , Bnl sees its behavior towards the company trade union organizations censured as anti-union. Denying rights, refusing confrontation, not listening to those who really want the good of the company and those who work there, relying on phantom gurus of industrial plans and union relations with the sole aim of cutting costs, leads to perennial conflict and higher costs, not only on an economic level but also on a social level due to the effects on the climate and working conditions, and for the consequent repercussions on the company's image”, commented Tommaso Vigliotti, national secretary of UNISIN and responsible secretary of UNISIN BNL.
THE DECISION OF THE LABOR JUDGE ON BNL
COURT OF ROME
Section 2nd work
The Labor Judge, Dr. Luca Redavid,
to dissolve the reservation expressed at the hearing of 07/19/23 in the proceeding registered under no. 11464/23 RG between FABI Autonomous Federation of Italian Bankers of Rome and Province – FIRST CISL Roma Rieti; FISAC CGIL, Rome Rieti district, Aniene Valley: UILCA Rome and Lazio; UNISIN – FALCRI TRADE UNION UNIT – SILCEA – SINFUB and BNL spa
OBSERVE
With an appeal pursuant to art. 28 of Law 300/70, the appellant organizations indicated in the epigraph appealed to the Court of Rome – GL, complaining of the anti-union behavior put in place by the defendant company consisting in the violation of art. 14 of the CCNL – credit, financial, instrumental companies of 12/19/19 and therefore asked to ascertain and declare the anti-union nature of the defendant's behavior and order the defendant to immediately cease and proceed with the requested six-monthly meeting by the appellant Unions pursuant to art. 14 of the applicable CCNL as well as to post the provision being issued on the company bulletin board and, in any case, to issue any provision suitable for the removal of the alleged anti-union conduct, with the award of expenses and fees.
The defendant company filed a brief, disputing what the adversary deduced and requested the rejection of the request as unfounded, with payment of costs and fees.
The Judge believes that the appeal is well founded.
It should be noted that the sphere of applicability of Article 28 of the Workers' Statute concerns the behavior of the employer aimed at preventing or limiting the exercise of trade union freedom and activity as well as the right to strike and that, to this end, a behavior that is objectively and not subjectively such is relevant, it being necessary that the same has the aptitude, even if only potentially, to harm the interests protected by the Workers' Statute.
The Judge observes that the CCNL for credit, financial and instrumental companies of 19.12.2019 provides in art. 14 a six-monthly meeting on the initiative of the trade union organizations concerning "problems relating to workloads and rhythms, personnel, hygienic-environmental conditions where the work takes place and the physical protection of male / female workers for the adoption of measures deemed suitable in relation to what has been proposed". The art. 14 c. IV of the National Collective Labor Agreement states that “The meetings in question must be held – jointly with all the trade union organizations signing this contract at the request of even just one of them – within 15 days from the date of the request. At the beginning of each six-monthly meeting, the union organizations must indicate all the topics that will form the subject of the meeting itself”.
From the documentation produced in the deeds it appears that on 01/30/2023 the appellant Unions requested the six-monthly meeting pursuant to art. 14 of the CCNL, specifically indicating the topics of this meeting and that on 02.14.2023 BNL communicated to the Trade Unions that the requested six-monthly meeting would not be held because "the requests made are in no way attributable to the provisions of the 'art. 14, paragraph I, of the CCNL of 19 December 2019".
In the statement of incorporation, the defendant company further deduced that the trade unions have made a mere request for data unrelated to the matters covered by the half-yearly report as they relate to: 1) workforce; 2) loads and rhythms of work; 3) hygienic-environmental conditions; 4) application verification of company agreements and, in particular, relating to: a) Point 3 of the "Workloads and rhythms" list: "Knowledge of the number of e-mails sent by managers and/or coordinators outside working hours standard (8 – 17:15 as per art. 105 of the CCNL in force) at the facility level”; b) Point 3.4. of the list "Hygienic-environmental conditions": "Parking situation: 3.4.1 – External parking (number of places, number of places occupied on average – with indication of the day on average most populous and on average least populous -, particular categories for which reserved seats and indications of which categories and number of seats reserved for each category); 3.4.2 – Internal parking (number of places, number of places occupied on average – with indication of the day on average most populous and on average least populous -, particular categories for which places are reserved and indications of which categories and number of places reserved for each category)”; c) Point 3.8.1 of the list "Hygienic-environmental conditions": "Bathrooms (subdivided by taps and/or sinks, toilet bowls, doors, supplies)"; the company also objected, with specific reference to the requests contained in point 4 – "Verification of company agreements application", that these do not in any way fall within the scope of the six-monthly meeting.
Contrary to the assumption of the defendant company, the Judge believes that the arguments of the trade union request for a six-monthly meeting pursuant to art. 14 cited that are deduced from the documentation in the documents, and also cited by the defendant, are fully compatible with the provisions of the contractual legislation even where they integrate a mere request for data (as objected by the company) as this request must be considered aimed at having more precise elements of knowledge regarding the topics covered by the data request, and this on the basis of a flat literal interpretation of the applicable contractual provision which does not provide for any limitation of the scope of the topics set out therein as a possible meeting object, among which is also expressly including the possibility of an application verification of any agreements reached at company or group level, contrary to what is further objected by the company.
Moreover, as observed by the trade unions applicants, among the topics indicated in the request for a meeting there are references to violations in terms of extraordinary performance, or to the effective implementation of art. 2 of the minutes of agreement dated 18 May 2022 on the subject of the hours bank, or again on the problem of emails sent outside working hours, or on the needs with reference to the benefits expected from the reorganization in progress, or on the critical issues associated with the accumulation of material that we consider flammable and dangerous, the absence of a slide for the disabled at the entrance, the problem connected to the discrepancy in the food offer during the opening of the service and the excessive clogging of the break areas, or in terms of illustration of the requests for intervention entered on helpy and concerning Palazzo Orizzonte Europa, with particular reference to the timing of the resolution and any reports re-proposed for the unsatisfactory solution regarding the specific problems referred to in 3.8.1. a 3.8.9 of the request forwarded by the Trade Unions, and also these arguments appear to comply with the provisions of art. 14 as possible objects of the meeting.
Nor can it be considered proven that the subsequent meeting between the parties on 02/20/23 convened by the defendant company had the nature of the six-monthly meeting envisaged by art. 14 cited, as always deduced by the defendant company, given the timely dispute on the point of the Unions (see doc. n. 8 of the appellant) and the lack of documentary evidence in this regard, since the summons of the company on 15/02/ 23 makes generic reference to the need to definitively clarify the issue between the parties and to address issues on which there had previously been a reservation for further study, and given that no minutes of this meeting have been produced in the documents, as expressly provided for by art. 14 c.2 of the CCNL, and given that it is not disputed between the parties that the Unions did not send the company the names of the trade union leaders participating in the meeting, as required by art. 14 c.5 of the CCNL for the purpose of carrying out the same; these circumstances are indicative of the fact that the meeting of 02/20/23 was not intended for the discussion of the topics referred to in the meeting request pursuant to art. 14.
Therefore, it must be considered that the behavior of the employer who refused to hold the six-monthly meeting pursuant to art. 14 of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement, concerning arguments envisaged by the contractual provisions, and which could have, in any case, also agreed to hold the requested meeting at least on the part of the arguments which are peacefully included in the contractual provisions, according to canons of good faith and contractual correctness which must always preside over the performance of the contractual relations between the parties, constitutes a contractual breach of art. 14 on trade union communication and information obligations and behavior harmful to the right to carry out trade union activity and trade union freedom given that the freedom and exercise of trade union prerogatives must and can obviously be exercised in the forms and within the limits established by law applicable law and contract.
Furthermore, the actuality of the lesion cannot be considered to have ceased even following the generic willingness expressed by the company at the hearing to hold the meeting envisaged by art. 14 expected that this availability has not materialized pending the judgment in any express convocation of the meeting requested by the Unions in order to discuss at least the more limited topics that peacefully appear to fall within the scope of art. 14.
Having to also consider these circumstances that have arisen for the purpose of assessing the current existence of objectively anti-union behavior of the defendant company, which for this purpose must also have the substantial requirement of suitability, concrete or potential, to cause offense to the protected asset, and not having the company adequately justified the breach of contract as ascertained, the alleged behavior must currently exist within the limits of what has been ascertained and its anti-union status in the sense specified above pursuant to art. 28 invoked (see also Cass. n. 14032/04 – 3917/04 – 3813/01), whose sphere of applicability concerns the behavior of the employer aimed at preventing or limiting the exercise of freedom and trade union activity , being relevant to this end a behavior that is objectively and not subjectively such and that the same has the ability, even if only potentially, to harm the interests protected by the Workers' Statute.
For the purposes of removing the effects of the ascertained conduct, the defendant company must be ordered to convene the meeting pursuant to art. 14 of the National Collective Labor Agreement required by the applicants' Unions on the topics indicated in the request for a meeting of 01/30/23 within the appropriate term of 30 days from the communication of this provision and to give appropriate notice of the latter on the company website within the same term.
Litigation costs, settled as per the provisions of Ministerial Decree no. 55/14 and subsequent change (DM n. 147/22), following the loss pursuant to art. 91 cpc
PQM extension
an acceptance of the appeal, declares the anti-union nature of the complained employer behavior and orders the cessation of this behavior by convening the meeting provided for by art. 14 of the CCNL applicable as required by the trade unions. applicants on 01/30/23 within the term of 30 days from the communication of this provision; he also orders that the respondent company provide appropriate notice of this provision on the company website within the same term.
Orders the defendant company to pay the costs of the litigation, settled in a total of Euro 3500.00, plus general expenses 15%, VAT and CPA as per law.
Communicate.
Rome, 08/05/23
THE JUDGE
Luca Redavid
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/bnl-condotta-antisindacale-giudice-lavoro/ on Mon, 07 Aug 2023 11:05:48 +0000.