There are EU Directives covering Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) driver working hours for routes over 50 km but driving only regular services on shorter routes is covered by national legislation. The absence of wailing and gnashing of teeth from unions citing breaches of the law suggests that Cyprus Public Transport (CPT) is acting in accordance with the directives and with national law.
The union may well choose to unilaterally ‘deem’ that CPT’s policies and working practices ‘cross the line’ regarding what it perceives as the ‘rights’ of some employees but from what legal basis do those ‘rights’ arise and what valid evidence is there for an objective assessment to reasonably conclude that proper rights are being violated? This can’t all be ‘deemed’ by a body lacking the authority to do so.
I wonder to what extent working hours and other working conditions have really changed with the transfer of operations to CPT. Drivers started working under their new contracts of employment less than a fortnight ago and we already see muscles being flexed in an initial display by those who (wrongly) think they deserve to be treated as alphas in this environment and seek to rule the roost. Without a sound legal argument to support it, it strikes me as a pretty clumsy and rather inept attempt to introduce the thin edge of the wedge.
Provided that its operations are consistent with EU and national law, why should the company commit to making the changes to its operations now sought by unions? Why should it commit to not managing daily schedules of drivers without union involvement/approval/oversight? Those enjoying union sinecures need to learn that, while they should properly have certain duties and responsibilities to their members, trying to manage private-sector businesses employing their members is not part of their remit.