The City of Reykjavík and the Responsibility It Avoids

Article by Kári Sigurðsson, chairman of Sameykir, and Sólveig Anna Jónsdóttir, chairman Efling

The City of Reykjavík has a strong obligation to ensure job security and fair treatment for employees who perform demanding and important work for the benefit of the city's residents every day. Despite this, Sameyki and Efling have repeatedly received cases where the city evades liability when employees suffer damage at work. This is serious, not only with regard to the rights of employees but also with regard to the fundamental obligations of an employer.

This is especially surprising given that the City of Reykjavík has for years wanted to position itself as a leading workplace in human resources and recently introduced a new human resources policy with great promise. Such a policy must be reflected in action, not just in slides, policy documents, and beautiful language.

In recent cases handled by Sameyki and Efling, for example, a residential complex was broken into while a Reykjavík City employee was at work. The employee’s personal belongings, including clothing, house keys and headphones, were stolen. The employee had not been given access to a locked facility or a secure locker to store his belongings at the workplace. Despite this, the City of Reykjavík flat out refused to compensate for the damage and the employee’s insurance company dismissed the case as the damage occurred during working hours. Another example that has been highlighted concerns an employee at a Reykjavík City emergency shelter, where a client broke into a locked employee space and stole an employee’s electric scooter worth almost 150 thousand krónur. The incident was caught on security camera and it was clear that the client was a client of the establishment. Despite clear damage, a police report, and a reference to a collective agreement clause that stipulates that employees can file a claim for compensation against their employer when damage occurs at work due to individuals who are not fully responsible for their actions, the City of Reykjavík rejected liability for compensation.

The case dragged on for months. The city did not respond to repeated requests, later admitted that the letter had sat unsent in a draft in a mailbox, and finally rejected the claim on the basis that the provision did not apply. This handling demonstrates a practice that is difficult to understand other than as an attempt to evade responsibility to employees who do demanding and often risky work for the city.

What makes these cases particularly serious is that the employees were working for the city, on city premises, and in conditions that the city is responsible for keeping safe. Yet the employees are left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, while the city chooses to hide behind narrow legal interpretations and formalities in its own insurance policies.

These cases are not unique. Employees have also suffered damage to their vehicles and other valuables at city workplaces, sometimes by clients that the city itself is responsible for servicing and maintaining. The responses received are all too often the same, that it is not fully proven when the damage occurred, that employees should look elsewhere, or that the incident does not “exactly” fall under the wording of the collective agreement.

An exemplary employer should not seek every means to escape responsibility towards its own employees. It should strive for the opposite: to protect the people who maintain the service day after day, often in difficult and risky conditions.

This raises serious questions. Should Reykjavík City employees really be showing up to work without any pay? Should unions warn people about certain workplaces if they don't want to take personal financial risks by showing up to work?

If this is the result, then there is something seriously wrong with both the procedures and the attitude of the City of Reykjavík. It is a serious concern when an employer who insures itself places a narrow interpretation of its own rules and collective bargaining provisions above the safety of its employees. Safety, protection and fair treatment should not be a bone of contention in collective bargaining agreements. These are basic obligations of an employer.

Sameyki and Efling demand that the City of Reykjavík immediately review its procedures and attitudes when employees are injured on the job. The city must ensure safe conditions in its workplaces and respond in a clear and fair manner when damage occurs to employees' property. It can never be acceptable that those on the front lines of service bear the cost of unsafe working conditions themselves.

 
Kári Sigurðsson
Chairman of Sameyki
 
Sólveig Anna Jónsdóttir 
Chairman Efling