OPINION

The opinion was issued regarding the complaint of A. A. against employer B. B. In the complaint, among other things, it was stated that A. A. is a person with a disability, works at the job of “passengers and bus traffic controller”. It was further stated that by the decision of the National Employment Service, Branch for the City of Belgrade no. …/2018 of … 2018, it was determined that he is not capable of performing hard and medium-hard physical jobs, as well as jobs that require long standing and walking, work in forced body positions, and work in bad microclimatic and climatic conditions, that he is not capable of working outdoors where he could be exposed to UV radiation, he is not capable of extended, work during the night or in shifts, he is not capable of working as a traffic controller, and that, with the mentioned limitations, he is capable of performing easy administrative tasks. The complainant states that the workplace where he works endangers his health and is not in accordance with medical expertise, as well as with the decision of the NES, about which he informed the employer, but that the employer did not respond or assign him to a workplace in accordance with his health condition and disability. In the statement, it was specified that by a legally binding court judgment in the procedure for annulment of the annex to the employment contract by which A. A. was assigned to the position of “passengers and bus traffic controller”, it was determined that this position is in accordance with the expertise of the competent health institution, as well as with the decision of the Republic PIA Fund from 1996. It was further specified that, after that, the complainant went for a reassessment of his workability on his own initiative and that the only difference in comparison to his previous workability is the assessment that he is not fit for the job of “traffic controller”. In the attachment to the statement, the employer submitted a judgment in which, among other things, it was stated that the court found that the plaintiff performs the duties of “passenger and bus exit controller” by working as needed and desired in a prefab house or staying next to the ramp, which is a workplace that does not require a higher physical effort, nor lifting or carrying loads, no long standing, sitting or walking, where it is possible to avoid exposure to bad climatic conditions (humidity and cold), no work is performed at height, and the work is done in day shifts, without extended work, and thus these jobs cannot cause a deterioration of the plaintiff’s health condition. In the course of the procedure, it was established that the employer proved that the position of “passenger and bus traffic controller”, where A. A. is working, is not a workplace where he is exposed to greater physical effort, lifting loads, long standing and walking, night work, extended work, work at height, work in bad microclimatic conditions (cold and humidity), exposure to UV radiation, work in a forced body position, as well as that the working hours of the complainant were adapted to his needs, i.e. that they proved that they ensured A. A. the performance of work according to his working capacity in conditions that will not cause deterioration of his health condition. Therefore the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued an opinion that the company B. B. did not discriminate against A. A. based on health conditions and disability.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković