No. 07-00-602/2025-02  Date: 5.11.2025.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in proceedings based on a complaint filed by A.A. from B., on behalf of her minor daughter B.B., against Primary School “V.V.” in V., due to discrimination during school enrollment. The complaint states that during enrollment of the child into the first grade, they were informed that the child does not meet the conditions for attending full-day classes because the father is not employed within the meaning of the Labor Law, that is, because the father is the holder of an agricultural household. It was further stated that both parents are gainfully employed and that the fact that the father is a farmer (holder of an agricultural household) does not mean that he does not work, and that they believe their child was discriminated against because she was not allowed to attend full-day classes. In the response of the school principal, it was stated that the conditions for enrolling a child in a class with full-day instruction are prescribed in the School Program, and that employment of both parents and other family members living with them is the primary condition, and that if there are excess children whose parents meet this condition, territorial affiliation will then be considered. It was further stated that the modern way of life – employment of both parents, working hours from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., building parents’ careers in independent businesses, changes in work schedules, shift work, living without grandparents, parental burnout at work, requires that schools also contribute and support parents in caring for children in addition to education and upbringing, and that aligning parents’ working hours with children’s stay at school, at least in the first two grades of primary school, resolves a major problem. It was stated that the school in no case prevented, prohibited, or made it difficult for any child to enroll in the first grade, but that in this specific case, confirmation of employment of the child’s father was missing for the child enrolled in the first grade. During the proceedings, it was established that student B.B. was enrolled in the first grade of Primary School “V.V.” in V., and that she was not assigned to a class with full-day instruction. It was further established that Primary School “V.V.” in V., in its School Program, determined that the primary condition for enrolling a child/student in the form of educational work – full-day instruction – is the employment of both parents, after which the place of residence of the child/student and parents will be considered, as well as living in a household with other members of the immediate family. It was also established that the school, by written communication to the complainants, pointed out that the condition is “that each parent who is in an employment relationship as defined by the Labor Law enables their child to spend more time at school than prescribed.” In the school’s response and the School Program, it is stated that the purpose of forming classes with full-day instruction is to support parents in caring for children, that is, supervising children (students) while parents are at work, due to the need to align parents’ working hours with children’s stay at school, that is, harmonizing parents’ private and professional needs. Restricting parents’ work engagement solely to employment in accordance with the Labor Law excludes a large number of employed and working parents, such as craftsmen and self-employed entrepreneurs, employees engaged under temporary and occasional work contracts, contracts for services, and others. During the proceedings, it was established that it is objectively justified for a school to determine conditions that must be met for a child to be assigned to a class with full-day instruction in cases where parental interest exceeds the school’s capacity. However, determining the condition that a child whose parents are employed exclusively in accordance with the Labor Law will be assigned to a full-day class unjustifiably excludes a large number of working parents, which is why this condition does not contribute to achieving the desired legitimate goal. The Commissioner points out that under the provisions of the Law on Agriculture and Rural Development, an agricultural household is defined as a production unit in which agricultural production, processing of agricultural products, or other non-agricultural activities (traditional crafts, rural tourism, etc.) are carried out, and that a commercial agricultural household is one that is market-oriented. In this regard, given the nature and scope of activities performed on an agricultural household, its orientation toward the market, and the fact that the law recognizes it as a production unit, work on agricultural household activities is not optional work even though, as stated in the response, it does not imply “strict working hours,” but it certainly implies work that presupposes absence from home. The school must also take into account the structure of the population in its territory, that is, the spatial area from which students enroll in the school based on residence or temporary residence. If a school is located in an area where residents predominantly or significantly engage in agriculture, it is necessary to take into account this category of parental work engagement and enable the school to provide them with support in the same way as other parents, that is, not exclude them by prescribing criteria that relate exclusively to parents who are in employment relationships. The Commissioner issued an opinion that Primary School “V.V.” in V., by applying the rule that the condition for assigning a child to a class with full-day instruction is that the child’s parents are employed only in accordance with the Labor Law, placed student B.B. in a less favorable position, thereby violating the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. The school was given a recommendation to undertake measures and activities within its competence in order to amend the condition whereby parental work engagement is considered only employment in accordance with the Labor Law (fixed-term and indefinite employment), while other forms of work engagement that also imply the need to reconcile work and parenthood are not taken into account, and to, in agreement with the parents of student B.B. and the school’s professional service, and in the best interest of the student, consider the possibility of the student attending full-day instruction starting from the next school year or earlier if possible.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY

Brankica Janković