The suspension of the HSBC manager whose briefcase went missing from his office, sparking an internal investigation, was the bank’s retaliation to industrial action, the bankers’ union claimed yesterday.

The bank is contending that this specific incident is not connected to the ongoing trade dispute

The Malta Union of Bank Employees said the employee was a union official and a manager at the bank’s Wealth Management section over which the union has a pending dispute.

On Monday, the bank confirmed a report it had lost information belonging to a number of clients but gave an assurance that no client would suffer financial loss.

The union said that on October 12, the manager immediately reported his missing briefcase, which was “believed to be lost on the bank’s premises”. It was common practice within the department to carry the information he had in the briefcase and the management was “fully aware” of this practice.

The incident took place a day after the section’s 50 employees all returned to work after two-and-a-half weeks on strike.

“While the bank is contending that this specific incident is not connected to the ongoing trade dispute, the MUBE strongly believes that the current suspension of its trade union official is in retaliation to the successful industrial action held in the past weeks,” the union said.

Asked for its reaction to the claims, the bank simply said that it was carrying out an internal investigation into the incident and therefore could not divulge further details.

“The bank has no further media comment to make at this stage and will be presenting its position within the appropriate fora,” it said.

The dispute between the bank and the union began on August 16 over the bank’s efforts to restructure the section that sells investment products.

On September 24, the union ordered industrial action and the whole section of 50 employees went out on strike.

On October 8, the union referred the case to the Industrial Tribunal and the following day filed a request for a warrant for an injunction to “counter a clear threat” after two female employees said they had been threatened with dismissal if they obeyed the union directive.