no. 07-00-255/2022-02 date: 10/17/2022

OPINION

The opinion was issued regarding the complaint of AA against BB. In the complaint, it was stated that, since June 4, 2019, AA was engaged at BB on the basis of a temporary contract of employment or temporary service contract. It was further stated that during her pregnancy she was still employed under a temporary service contract at BB and that she and the secretary of BB, somewhere around September 20, 2021, i.e. 10 days before the end of the contract, agreed that she would continue her engagement under the same contract. She has promised that she will return to work as soon as she pulls herself together after childbirth and until then she would complete the work assigned to her by her employer from home. The complaint also stated that when the time came to extend the contract, on October 1, 2021, the contract was not extended, without explanation. The complainant believes that her decision to give birth to a second child was the reason why her contract was not extended. The statement of the employer specified that the employment of the complainant ended with the expiration of the period for which it was concluded, and not by a dismissal. It was also stated that after the termination of the employment of the complainant, the employer did not employ anyone or engage other persons to perform tasks that are the same as the tasks performed by the complainant based on her work contract. It is further stated that the termination of the engagement cannot be related to the fact that the complainant became pregnant, because during her pregnancy she was engaged on the basis of four work contracts, that is, the employer extended her engagement period for all nine months of her pregnancy. It is further stated that despite all the challenges they faced and the lack of financial resources, the employer tried to keep the complainant employed as long as possible so that she would have an income for as long as possible. During the procedure, it was established that the complainant was employed by the employer on the basis of a non-permanent employment contract and that she was not offered a new contract after giving birth. When assessing this issue, the Commissioner had in mind the specifics of temporary contracts of employment and temporary service contracts, and the fact that there is no legal obligation on the part of the employer to extend the validity of these contracts, i.e. conclude new ones, in the event of a worker’s pregnancy, as would be the case the case that the woman is permanently employed. Taking this into account as well as the specifications from the statement that other persons were not engaged for the same job as the complainant, but rather for the jobs of driver, cook and auxiliary worker, the Commissioner did not find that the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination were violated in this particular case. However, bearing in mind that the complainant was continuously employed by the employer for two and a half years, as well as the devastating data on the position of women on the labor market, the Commissioner, using the competences from Article 33, Item 9, of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, recommended measures to the employer BB, to consider the possibility of employment of the complainant, and if the conditions for this have not yet been met, to notify her as soon as the conditions for her employment are met. Also, that in all cases where there is a need for employment of the same person for a longer period of time, consider the possibility of establishing a permanent employment relationship instead of prolonged engagement by contracts of temporary employment.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković