The letters, according to union representatives, contained unorthodox and punitive language, reigniting long-standing friction between the two sides.
The Employees’ Union accused the bank of adopting a “disciplinary” approach to performance management rather than a constructive one. In a strongly worded statement titled “The Union’s Response to the Bank’s Letters,” it argued that proper evaluation should focus on prevention, improvement, and guidance, not punishment. The union cited examples of negative phrasing in the letters, such as references to the “exhaustion of every ounce of our tolerance and endurance,” which it described as unacceptable in a professional context.
The union also condemned the use of standardized letters, claiming that identical texts were sent to employees regardless of personal or social circumstances. It argued that the process failed to take into account health issues, family situations, or other personal factors, as well as individual differences in measurable performance. Furthermore, the union alleged direct interference in specific departments, claiming that evaluators were pressured to downgrade certain employees’ scores, even against their own judgment. It pledged to support any worker it considers unfairly treated, insisting that each case should be assessed on its own merits.
Alpha Bank has defended its practices, stating that performance evaluations and rewards are part of institutionalized and transparent procedures. Sources close to the bank’s management said the union’s depiction was misleading, noting that out of 5,363 employees, around 75 percent—more than 4,000 people—received letters of appreciation and bonuses. The bank maintains that this demonstrates its commitment to recognizing and rewarding the majority of its workforce.
Disputes over evaluation and pay are not new at Alpha Bank. Earlier this year, in January, the atmosphere was already tense when employees were informed of their 2023 performance-based salary increases. As reported by the Greek news outlet Dnews.gr, the process sparked frustration when many workers learned they would receive no raise at all. When the increases were credited to accounts two days later, employees discovered significant disparities: individuals with the same performance score had received different raises, sometimes differing by as much as €3,000, while experienced team leaders were paid less than their subordinates.
Informally, it was suggested that the pay rises were linked to the March 2024 performance review, with only those scoring above “3” receiving increases. Employees complained that they had never been informed this evaluation would determine their pay, while some department heads claimed they had been pressured to award higher scores to certain staff members.
Unofficial explanations circulated that management prioritized the 35–45 age group in an effort to retain mid-career professionals tempted by competing banks. Even so, many employees in that demographic were reportedly excluded due to low performance ratings.
At the time, Alpha Bank said that salary adjustments are always tied to annual performance reviews, adding that raises cannot be granted to employees who score below average. The bank also emphasized that final decisions depend on available budgets, the number of eligible employees, and the strategic priorities of each division.
Now, those internal tensions appear to be resurfacing. According to new complaints, some team leaders who refused to manipulate evaluations—either positively or negatively—were informed that they would be removed from their positions. Sources within the bank have dismissed these allegations as exaggerated, suggesting that the controversy is being used to personally target Alpha Bank’s Chief Human Resources Officer, Fragkiski Melissa.
