OPINION

The opinion was issued in the proceedings regarding the complaint filed by M.J. against HC.”B” and G.M., the director of HC.”B.”. The complaint stated that M. J. was employed in DZ “B” for a fixed-term period from July 2014 to December 20, 2017, as a substitute for female colleagues until they returned to work and due to the increased volume of work, as well as that in June 2016, she found out that she was pregnant, and she went on maternity leave at the beginning of July 2016, while on December 19, 2017, she requested from her employer an “extension of sick leave based on the pediatrician’s findings, which was not accepted”. However, the complainant stated that on May 16, 2018, she was invited to work at HC “B.” but on the same day received a notice from the legal department that she cannot continue with her employment due to the legal term of 24 months being exceeded. The Health Center “B” stated that M.J. was engaged in HC “B” for a fixed-term period due to the increased volume of work for a total duration of 24 months. In the statement, they explained that, taking into account the provisions of the Labor Law, a fixed-term employment relationship due to a temporary increase in the volume of work can be established with the same employee on the same or other jobs for a period that, with or without interruptions, cannot exceed 24 months. They further stated that the complainant could establish an employment relationship for an indefinite period only with the approval of Commission for granting permission for new employment and additional employment with beneficiaries of budget funds. In this regard, HC “B.”, in the period from 2014 to July 2018, addressed the mentioned Commission several times regarding the approval for the employment of a radiological technician, but did not receive a response to any of the requests, as well as that without the Commission’s consent, there is no possibility of employing a radiological technician for an indefinite period. In this regard, the Commissioner addressed the Commission for granting permission for new employment and additional employment with beneficiaries of budget funds, which confirmed the statements of HC “B.”. During the procedure, it was established that the reason why the fixed-term contract of M. J. was not extended, i.e., why she was not employed for an indefinite period in HC “B” is not related to the use of leave from work for taking care of the child during 2016 and 2017, i.e., her family status, but to the fact that the employer could not conclude a new employment contract with her for a fixed-term period, because it would thus exceed the legal term prescribed by Article 37, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Labor Law. Also, the employer did not have the right to employ the complainant for an indefinite period because HC “B.”, as a beneficiary of budget funds, did not receive approval for the employment of new persons from the competent commission. Due to all of the above, and after the conducted procedure, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality issued the opinion that HC “B” and G. M., director of HC “B.”, did not violate the provisions of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković