No. 07-00-30\/2015-02 date: 15 June 2015<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
OPINION<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The opinion was issued in the procedure following a complaint filed by V.L. from B. against the employer, company \u201cV.B.\u201d a.d. N. S, due to the transfer from the post of a business secretary to the post of a cashier clerk when returning to work after childcare leave. In the course of the procedure was determined that company \u201cV. B.\u201d a.d. N. S. abolished the post on which V.L. worked during her absence from work, in accordance with the Rulebook on Amendments to the Rulebook on Job Systematization in V. B. No. 01.1-1387\/1\u0425\u0420 dated 18 September 2014, that is, the tasks of a business secretary in the bank, after this change, are performed by one female employee only, and not two, as it was the case before. Before V. L. took leave to maintain pregnancy, secretary tasks were performed by her and U. \u041c. \u041e, and the employer kept U.M.O at the position of the business secretary whereas V. L. was transferred to the post of a cashier clerk. The employer adopted this decision on the basis of the results of an assessment conducted for 2013 and 2014, and V. L. was not assessed for this period as she was on maternity leave and on childcare leave. In this manner, V.L. was brought to an unequal position compared to other employees whose equal status was decided upon in the stated period on the grounds of gender and family status. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality issued an opinion that the employer\u2019s decision on transferring V.L. from the post of a business secretary to the post of a cashier clerk, which was exclusively based on results of assessment conducted for 2013and 2014, violates the provisions of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. For this reason, a recommendation was issued to \u201cV.B.\u201d \u0430.d. N. S. to re-examine the decision on transferring V.L. to the post of a cashier clerk by applying objective criteria on the basis of which the company will comprehensively assess V. L. work skills, knowledge and abilities to work on the post of a business secretary, without taking into account the results of assessment conducted for 2013 and 2014, and bearing in mind the fact that V. L. was not assessed during this period. Also, a <\/em>recommendation was issued to <\/em>\u201cV.B.\u201d to harmonize internal bank\u2019s acts with anti-discrimination legislation so that women who are not assessed during pregnancy and maternity leave as well as the employees on childcare leave are not put in an unequal position compared to other employees, if the employer in any way changes their gender-legal status during their absence or immediately after they return to work, and to ensure in the future not to violate legal regulations on the prohibition of discrimination in the course of its regular operations and activities.<\/em><\/p>\n PROTECTION OF EQUALITY<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n No. 07-00-30\/2015-02 date: 15 June 2015 OPINION \u00a0 The opinion was issued in the procedure following a complaint filed by V.L. from B. against the employer, company \u201cV.B.\u201d a.d. N. S, due to the transfer from the post of a business secretary to the post of a cashier clerk when returning to work after…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[177],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-multiple-discrimination"],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n
\n <\/td>\n COMMISSIONER FOR THE<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Brankica Jankovi\u0107<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"