The Spanish bank BBVA inherited the collective pact drawn up by Gran Ahorrar, following the merger between the two banks in 2005. It also inherited the collective agreement managed by three trade unions: ACEB (the largest and the oldest of the three), UNEB and SintraBBVA (company-level union), which had a combined membership of 2,500 at the time, out of a total workforce of 5,200. The collective agreement therefore applied to all the staff at the bank.
Following the merger, the bank modernised and improved its technological platform, which gave rise to staff cuts and a change in labour policy. The workload increased and the bank concluded large numbers of «voluntary» agreements to free itself of the longest-serving employees, in addition to those fired as a result of stricter disciplinary procedures. It managed, in this way, to rid itself of 600 workers, most of them unionised, according to María Consuelo Bautista of the national executive of the ACEB.
«The unionised workers were presented with two options: they could benefit from an additional 20% in severance pay for agreeing to leave the bank or be dismissed in any case with no more than the statutory severance pay. Many therefore opted to accept the deal and leave. What’s more, the office managers were given bonuses if they managed to get rid of union members,» explains Bautista.
At the same time, the bank launched a policy of subcontracting staff through temporary employment agencies. As a result, eight years on, almost a third of the staff in the various areas of the BBVA’s financial business is subcontracted.
As a result of all this, the union was left with less than a third of the employees, and the company was able to impose a collective pact. This took place in April 2006, when a group of workers was called to sign documents with a view to renewing the pact, in a blatant move to undermine the union," explains María Consuelo Bautista.
And the strategy worked: the unions that, a few years ago, had a combined membership representing the majority of the staff now only represent a minority. Eighty per cent of the bank’s staff is covered by the collective pact and the rest by collective agreement, which, moreover, offers fewer benefits than the pact. In addition, the bank awards a variety of assessment-based bonuses that can add up to $3 million a year. But the assessments are subjective and biased, as the workers who belong to the union are poorly assessed and never receive bonuses, explains Bautista. Those covered by the pact also receive better education and maternity allowances.
People stay in the union because they are committed to the fight, and because the collective agreement has one advantage that the pact does not: stability, thanks to a clause that dates back to before 1990, establishing that fair dismissal must be proved before a court. The bank wanted to eliminate this clause during the negotiation of the agreement in 2009, but the three unions united to defend it.
«In some dismissal cases, however, the courts have ruled in the company’s favour,» adds Bautista. «In other words, they are taking the stability advantage away from us though legal channels, whatever the cost.»
There is, however, a great deal of anxiety among the members of the pact, who are under increasing pressure to improve their performance and meet ever-higher targets, under threat of sanctions or dismissal. There is less pressure of this kind on the union members, which is a good reason to leave the pact and join the union.
Another issue denounced by the union is that the rules set out in the Substantive Labour Code were not followed during the renewal of the collective pact (2013-2015 period). The company paid a polling company to determine the viability of the pact, and did not follow the prior complaint procedure. It simply called on the workers to elect their representatives and signed the new pact with them.