POLICE OFFICERS and firemen protested yesterday about their current timetable and in support of their colleague, police union representative Andreas Symeou.
The protest took place at 2:15 outside police headquarters and was attended by unions from the public and private sector as well as from a number of European countries.
A letter demanding the freedom to unionise was delivered for the attention of police Chief Michalis Papageorgiou.
Symeou fought against plans to reorganise the timetable for traffic police from a 12-hour shift to an eight-hour one, calling the schedule “inhuman” and staging protests when the scheme was introduced by Papageorgiou in July last year.
In the meantime, police association (SAK) – led by Symeou – waged an ultimately successful battle to win the right of officers to join the civil servant’s union PASYDY, who have been backing the creation of a police union.
SAK however claims that their unionist rights have been continuously “snubbed” by police leadership.
There has been “interference with SAK’s unionist activities, restrictions in mail correspondence and unionising, while the time allocated for union issues has been limited like never before,” SAK’s secretary Panayiotis Panayiotou said.
The disagreement over timetables also continues to be a major issue for SAK, particularly for its fire fighters and traffic wardens.
Police leadership admitted on Friday that “there were some problems” but noted that Papageorgiou “referred the issue for study to a committee which SAK also participated in.”
SAK promptly issued a response claiming “we have never known about any such committee and we publicly call on [Papageorgiou] to disclose its composition.”
Symeou was suspended for 30 days on April 11 for alleged inappropriate behaviour towards the chief of police when he insisted on discussing his criminal charges during a Limassol headquarters inspection.
Police leadership have continuously denied that they have an anti-unionist agenda.
SAK has called for President Christofias to get involved asking why a government “whose central philosophy is protecting what working people already have” is not interfering to apply their philosophy “within the police force”.
