, social magazine

Employers can not fire a woman just because they have children

The mother of two children returned to the position of assistant of one financial institution after her parental leave. Even before her parental leave, her employer tried to persuade her to end her employment and did not return to work. But it was a woman who cared for two children, she could not afford, and she had no reason to do so.

After returning to work with the woman, the employer tried to make the conditions worse enough to give herself a notice. After half a year, when the woman resisted the pressure, her employer announced that she would be denied by her dismissal. The woman turned to the Ombudsman's office and managed to help her reach a solution that suits both sides.

The complainant faced various inconveniences on her return to work. For example, her place was moved to inappropriate spaces on another floor of a building where she was isolated from other colleagues and burdened with noise. Unlike the other two - childless - assistants, she was assigned tasks that were not popular with employees.

In the spring of this year she was informed that her organizational changes would be canceled. However, the company's previous talks showed a purposeful act of trying to get rid of the mothers of two children because she was not as flexible as her childless colleague . If the reason for the termination of the employment relationship is to have small children, such behavior would be a feature of discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

The ombudsman's office informed her about her options, such as filing a complaint to the Labor Inspectorate, and above all about the possibility to defend herself in court by filing an anti-discrimination lawsuit. The next hearing with the employer was to reassess the statement. The woman agreed to terminate her employment when she accepted the offer for her benefit compensation.

You can negotiate shorter hours

In another case, the complainant, who is the employee of one ministry, was assisted. Being able to combine full-time and childcare with difficulty, she asked the employer to shorten her workload to five hours a day to take care of the baby and also go to work. However, the authority did not allow her to reduce her employment, even though the complainant was able to do so in the office.

If this does not prevent the need to properly perform tasks, the child-care workers under the terms of the Civil Service Act have the right to reduced working hours. Following a consultation with the Public Defender's Office, the complainant filed a petition against the decision to appeal, which led to the decision being changed and the complainant had shortened the working hours to take care of the child and the work even though she had to wait one year.

Source: tz Ochrá, edited editorially

Like FiftyFifty article:

All articles 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 on