1. 07-00-499/2017-02 date: 21/03/2018

                                                 OPINION

This Opinion was issued in the procedure regarding the complaint by the Union r.g. and IGM S, submitted on behalf and with the consent of D. S. against the employer, the company “R.” a.d. M. Z. and A. S., general manager, due to discrimination based on a personal characteristic of a member of the family of D. S. – membership in political, union and other organizations and her personal characteristic – gender. The complaint by the submitting party states that, inter alia, the manager of the company started with discriminatory treatment against D. S. since the election of her husband as president of the union organization, and that the discriminatory treatment was primarily reflected in offering a consensual termination of employment to D. S. that she refused, and was thereafter referred to work with another employer, then to paid leave, and finally reassigned from the post of laboratory technician with secondary vocational qualifications to the post of assistant worker. It is further stated that after the manager learned that the husband of D. S. initiated court proceedings due to the illegal termination of the labour contract, he continued discriminating against D. S., thus referring her to work at the WU Kamenolom (Quarry), where she is manually moving rocks 2-3 kilograms in weight from one place to another, with manual cleaning of rocks from dirt, while machines remain unused. The response statement to the complaint by the manager of the company “R.” a.d., inter alia, states that in addition to D. S., another 20 employees were referred to work at another employer, and that those referred were usually employees on leave due to the reduced amount of production. Furthermore, the statement notes that upon the termination of employment with the other employer D.S. returned to the post she was referred from, but since the job of laboratory technician is performed by another employee, there was no need for two laboratory technicians, and the company “R.” works on the production of stone aggregate, therefore all business activities are done at the quarry. The procedure established that all changes in the labour law status of D. S. (offer of consensual termination of employment, referral to paid leave, referral to work for another employer, transfer to a lower post, with more difficult working conditions) followed after the appointment of her husband as the commissioner of the union organization “R.”. Therefore, and having in mind that the described actions by the management of the company followed after the appointment of the husband of D. S, M. S., as the commissioner of the union organization R, and that the company offered no evidence to deny the claims stated in the complaint, the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, upon implementing the procedure and in accordance with the rule on the transfer of the burden of evidence as per Article 45  of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, the rule from Article 45 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, established that D. S. was placed in an unequal position at work without justification, based on the personal characteristic of her husband – membership of a union organization. Therefore, the Commissioner issued the opinion that the company “R.” a.d. from M. Z. violated the provisions of Article 6 regarding articles 16 and 25 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. Therefore the company “R.” a.d. was recommended to undertake all necessary measures to eliminate the consequences of discriminatory treatment against D. S, to adopt a Code of Equality to prevent discrimination and improve equality in the working environment of the collective for the employer “R.” a.d. and in the future, when performing work under their competence, to avoid violations to anti-discrimination regulations.