A significant disagreement has erupted between police unions and the leadership of the Cypriot police force regarding substantial changes to officers' working conditions. Two prominent unions, Pasydy and the police association, have registered strong objections, citing a distinct lack of consultation and a perceived infringement upon essential employee rights. These proposed alterations, slated to be implemented from January 1, 2026, involve modifications to daily duty schedules and a considerable reduction in annual leave entitlements. This has consequently ignited a vigorous debate concerning labour practices within the nation's police service.
The controversy was initiated by Police Chief Themistos Arnaoutis, who announced the new regulations through a press conference and an internal departmental circular ominously titled "utilization of human resources." The primary objective of these changes is to ensure that all police personnel strictly adhere to their contracted working hours, thereby limiting the accumulation of overtime. Chief Arnaoutis clearly stated that "All police officers will work the hours they are supposed to work and not more," suggesting this measure would enhance the daily operational presence of officers. This initiative, he explained, is a result of internal assessments and observations from the Ministry of Finance.
However, this top-down approach has provoked considerable consternation among the unions. They have publicly expressed their "discomfort and indignation" regarding the unilateral announcement of these significant shifts. The unions assert that working hours are a fundamental component of an employment contract and are not subject to unilateral modification by management. They emphasize that current working arrangements are the outcome of formal, negotiated agreements, including a 2017 stipulation for a phased alignment of police hours with the broader public service. A key point of contention is the 2019 reduction in working hours to 37.5 per week, which unions argue was exclusively for administrative staff, leaving operational officers with different arrangements.
The proposed modifications are comprehensive. Beyond recalibrating daily schedules, the most contentious aspect is the potential reduction in annual leave days, from 19.5 to a mere 4.7 days. This drastic cut, coupled with the enforcement of standard working hours, is perceived by the unions as a substantial detriment to officer welfare and work-life balance. They contend these changes were communicated without any prior dialogue or consensus-building with the personnel's representative bodies.
The implications of these developments are far-reaching. The police unions have issued a stern warning that implementing these decisions without mutual agreement would constitute a grave transgression of established labour institutions. Furthermore, they caution that such an inflexible approach risks irreparably damaging the trust essential between police leadership and the unions, casting a shadow over labour relations within the entire police force. The unions remain resolute, asserting that any alteration to working conditions must be a subject of collaborative negotiation, not a unilateral decree. The coming months will likely witness intense negotiations and potentially further industrial action as both sides endeavour to navigate this contentious labour dispute.