OPINION
The opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint, filed by AA against BB, general manager of the company “VV” and GG, director of finance and accounting of the company “VV”, due to discrimination based on marital and family status. In the complaint, the applicant asserted, among other things, that she applied for a job at the company VV, for the position of “Accountant”, that she was invited to a test at the beginning of March, and that on April 14, 2021, she was sent an email with a proposal of a work contract in which May 17, 2021, was stated as the date of establishment of the employment relationship. She further stated that she came to sign the employment contract on the scheduled day, and on that occasion she was presented with a new date for starting the employment relationship, namely May 12, 2021, so she informed the director of GG “that she is not sure that she will be able to start work on the specified day because she was planning a vacation during that period”, that is, that she is waiting for a tourist visa to travel to Great Britain, where her partner lives. Furthermore, it was stated that the director communicated this information to the general director of the company, who agreed with the opinion that the complainant is a “risky worker”, which is why the employment contract was not concluded with her. In the statement of BB and GG, among other things, it was stated that at the scheduled meeting where the signing of the employment contract was planned, the complainant “significantly changed her behavior and for the first time stated the fact that she applied for a visa in order to travel on vacation to Great Britain and to start work after returning from that country”. Furthermore, it was stated that this proposal of the applicant was not “acceptable to the employer”, bearing in mind that the training process had to be started, as well as the fact that the planned trip to Great Britain, according to all epidemiological measures at the time, would have entailed her stay in isolation for at least 14 days, “which would significantly hinder the planned activities, and could also negatively affect the health of all other employees, for which the employer did not want to take the risk”. By analyzing the allegations of the complaint and the statement, as well as by the assessment of the submitted evidence, it can be concluded that the complainant attended a number of meetings in the company VV, among other things, with the persons against whom the complaint was filed, and that at none of them was she asked a question that related to her marital and family status, but that after the interviews with the company representatives, she was sent a proposal for an employment contract with an invitation to come to the company’s premises to sign it if she agrees with its provisions. Furthermore, it was determined that the “problem” occurred on the day of the conclusion of the employment contract, that is, that the contracting parties did not reach an agreement regarding the date of commencement of work and establishment of the employment relationship of the complainant. Given that the contract represents the agreement of the wills of contractual parties and that it is considered concluded at the moment when the contracting parties have agreed on the essential elements of the contract, it is obvious that in this particular case, the reason for not concluding an employment contract with the complainant is not her marital and family status, but the fact that no agreement was reached between the complainant and the management of the company VV regarding the date of her starting a trial work with the employer, which in this particular case is an important element of the contract, considering that the six-month period on which it is concluded begins. In accordance with all the above, the Commissioner issued the opinion that the management of the company VV did not violate the provisions of Article 6 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.
COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković