KARACHI, July 15: The Democratic Workers’ Union of the State Bank of Pakistan has condemned the bank’s action to stop the deduction of union dues from the salaries of staff and members.

The union said that some time back a new organization in the name of SBC Banking Services was created by the State Bank. The workers said that both were the same organizations, but the management had claimed that both were separate entities.

The matter for the clarification of the status of workers was referred to the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Commission on July 8 decided that both were separate entities. The union was planning to file an appeal against the decision in the given time of 30 days.

However, the management without waiting for the 30-day appeal-time to pass, has decided to stop the deduction of the union dues and fees from the salaries of its employees. The union also presented a letter issued by the bank on July 8, 2003.

The union says that Saleem Moosa, a joint-director of the SBP Banking Services Corporation, in his letter under the subject of “Staff Union — Deduction of amount of membership subscription / donation” has directed all the chief managers and all the heads of departments that the deductions be stopped.

The letter states, “We advise that as per orders dated July 8, 2003 of the Member / RITU of the NIRC, Islamabad, the SBP and SBP Banking Services Corporation are two separate legal entities.

“The honourable court further held that for the purpose of CBA both the establishments are separate. The industry-wise trade unions of the workers of SBP, which were registered in the NIRC have been cancelled.

“In these circumstances, it is clear that at present there exists no trade union in the SBP and the SBP Banking Service Corporation. As such check-off facility allowed to the Democratic Workers / all union under the existing instructions should be discontinued forthwith.

“You are advised to please deliver a copy of this circular to all the clerical and non-clerical staff of your office against proper acknowledgement, for their information,” the letter stated.