**NICOSIA, CYPRUS** – A significant rift has emerged between police unions and the force’s leadership following the recent announcement of sweeping changes to officers' working conditions. Pasydy and the police association have voiced profound objections, citing a lack of consultation and a perceived erosion of fundamental employee rights. The proposed alterations, set to take effect from January 1, 2026, encompass adjustments to daily duty rosters and a substantial reduction in annual leave entitlements, sparking a fervent debate over labor practices within the Cypriot police force.
The controversy was ignited by Police Chief Themistos Arnaoutis, who, through a press conference and a departmental circular ominously titled "utilization of human resources," unveiled the new regulations. The core of these changes is the stated aim to ensure that all members of the police force adhere to their contracted working hours, thereby curtailing the accumulation of overtime. Chief Arnaoutis articulated this objective by stating, "All police officers will work the hours they are supposed to work and not more," positing that such a measure would augment the daily operational presence of officers on the ground. This initiative, according to the police chief, stems from internal assessments within the force and observations provided by the Ministry of Finance.
However, this top-down approach has been met with considerable consternation from the unions, who have publicly expressed their "discomfort and indignation" at the unilateral announcement of these significant shifts. They contend that working hours constitute a fundamental aspect of an employment contract and are not amenable to unilateral alteration by management. The unions underscore that the current working arrangements are the product of formal, negotiated agreements, including a stipulation from 2017 that mandated a phased alignment of police working hours with those of the broader public service over a three-year span. A notable point of contention is the 2019 reduction in working hours to 37.5 hours per week, which, unions argue, was exclusively implemented for administrative personnel, leaving operational officers with different arrangements.
The proposed modifications are multifaceted. Beyond the recalibration of daily schedules, the most contentious element appears to be the proposed reduction in annual leave days, which could potentially be slashed from 19.5 days to a mere 4.7 days. This drastic cut, coupled with the insistence on adherence to standard working hours, is viewed by the unions as a significant detriment to the welfare and work-life balance of police officers. They argue that these changes were communicated without any preceding dialogue or consensus-building with the representative bodies of the force's personnel.
The implications of these developments are far-reaching. The police unions have issued a stern warning: the implementation of these decisions without achieving a mutual agreement would represent a grave transgression of established labour institutions. Furthermore, they caution that such an unyielding approach risks irreparably damaging the trust that should exist between the police leadership and the unions, consequently casting a pall over labour relations within the entire police force. The unions are steadfast in their position, asserting that any alteration to working conditions must be a subject of collaborative negotiation, not a decree. The coming months will likely see intense negotiations and potentially further industrial action as both sides strive to navigate this contentious labour dispute.