Reykjavík city has a strong duty to ensure occupational safety and fair treatment of staff who daily perform demanding and important tasks for the benefit of the city's residents. Nevertheless, the Union and Efling repeatedly raise issues where the city shirks its responsibility when employees suffer injury at work. This is serious, not only with respect to employees' rights but also with respect to the fundamental obligations of the employer.
Especially raises eyebrows in light of the fact that the City of Reykjavík has for years wanted to position itself as a leading workplace in human resources matters and recently introduced a new HR policy with great promises. Such a policy must be manifested in action, not only in slides, policy documents and beautiful wording.
In recent cases that the Union and Efling have dealt with, for example, a break-in occurred in an apartment complex while a Reykjavík city employee was on duty. The theft was of the employee's personal belongings, including clothing, house keys and hearing aids. The employee had not been given access to a locked facility or a secure cabinet to store his belongings at the workplace. Despite this, Reykjavík city completely refused to compensate the damage and the employee's insurance company referred the case away because the damage occurred during working hours. Another example that has been cited concerns an employee in the emergency shelter of Reykjavík city, where a client broke into a locked staff room and stole an electric scooter belonging to the employee valued at approximately 150 thousand crowns. The incident was captured on security camera and appeared to involve a client of the facility. Despite clear damage, a police report and reference to a collective bargaining clause that stipulates that staff may directly claim compensation from the employer when damage occurs at work due to individuals who do not bear full responsibility for their actions, Reykjavík city denied liability.
The case dragged on for months. The city did not respond to the repetitions, later acknowledged that the matter had remained unsent in drafts in the mailbox and ultimately rejected the claim on the grounds that the provision was not applicable. This handling demonstrates practices that are difficult to understand other than as an attempt to evade responsibility towards staff who work demanding and often risky jobs for the city.
What makes this case especially serious is that the staff were working for the city, in the city’s premises and in circumstances for which the city is responsible to be safe. Yet the staff are left with damage amounting to hundreds of thousands of crowns, while the city chooses to hide behind a narrow legal interpretation and formalities in its own insurance terms.
This case is not typical. Staff have also suffered damage to their cars and other valuables at the city's workplaces, sometimes due to clients for whom the city itself is responsible for servicing and managing. The answers received are far too often the same, that it has not been proven when the damage occurred, that staff should look elsewhere or that the incident does not „exactly“ fall under the wording of the collective agreement.
A model employer must not look for every way to evade responsibility towards his own staff. He must work towards the opposite: to protect the people who keep the service up day after day, often in difficult and risky circumstances.
This raises serious questions. Is the staff of Reykjavík city really expected to go to work without pay? Should the trade unions warn people about certain workplaces if they do not want to take personal financial risk by showing up for work?
If this is the result, then something is seriously bent in both the procedures and the attitude of Reykjavík city. It is a serious cause for concern when an employer who insures himself sets a narrow interpretation of his own rules and collective agreement provisions over the safety of staff. Safety, protection and fair treatment should not be a bone of contention in collective agreements. These are the basic obligations of the employer.
The Union and Efling demand that Reykjavíkurborg review its procedures immediately and its attitude when staff suffer injury at work. The city must ensure safe conditions at its workplaces and respond in a clear and fair manner when damage occurs to staff property. It can never be acceptable that those on the front line of service bear the cost of unsafe working conditions themselves.
Kári Sigurðsson
Chairman of the Union
Sólveig Anna Jónsdóttir
Chairman Efling
