The SBI staffers are protesting against a recent notification issued by the bank’s management that the Money Market operations, which are hitherto done in Kolkata, will be discontinued in phases, beginning with the shifting the Front Office operations to Mumbai from March 10.

The discontent among the protesters had been brewing since March last year when the management had failed to implement the decision of a tripartite meeting, held between SBI and the officers and staff federations, to resolve the matter.

During 1997-98, the management had decided to shift the Forex Dealing and Cover Operations to Mumbai. The reason was to integrate it with the Bank’s Domestic Treasury. Following protests, the management and the employees reached an agreement on January 12, 2000, to equally divide operations between Mumbai and Kolkata.

Notwithstanding the agreement, the entire Dealing and Cover Operations of the bank were gradually shifted to Mumbai. The matter was reopened in the March 26 tripartite meeting last year, which declared that since it was not feasible to carry out operations from two centres, FD Kolkata will be allocated other jobs instead.

In an apparent attempt to compensate for the loss, it was also decided that the proposed Inward Remittance Cell and Disaster Recovery Cell of Dealing and Cover Operation be handed over to the FD here.

“But that did not happen. Meanwhile, the independent stature of FD was dealt a blow after its Clearing Code was removed and made an appendage to the Mumbai Corporate Centre,” said Ashok Dutta, General Secretary, SBI Staff Association, Bengal Circle.

The FD, which dealing in all its Foreign Exchange business, has been one of the most important departments of the SBI here.

Making a case for their agitation, one of the employees points out, “In fact, during the Mumbai floods when the banking operations were crippled, it was the FD Kolkata which had anchored the dealing operations.”

According to SK Haldar, general secretary, SBI Officers’ Association, Bengal Circle: “Contrary to what is being projected, this is not a transfer-related issue raised by the employees. It is a loss for the state at a time

when it is trying to rope in foreign investment. The staff associations of other states have extended their support to us.”