Monitoring anti-discrimination legislation in the workplace

The Slovak state labour inspectorate performed checks in 2009 and 2010 on adherence to anti-discrimination principles in industrial relations at workplaces where employees had submitted petitions and information about violation of the principle of equal treatment. The petitions dealt mainly with pay and industrial relations issues. Of the submitted petitions, only 25% were confirmed as legitimate; other petitioners were advised to seek a solution through the courts.

Legal background

Slovak legislation lays down conditions for the equal treatment of employees in industrial relations. These conditions are set out mainly in two legal documents.

The first, Act No. 311/2001 Coll. of the Labour Code, establishes:

• the principle of equal treatment by employers;

• the right of an employee to make a complaint to their employer about a lack of equal treatment and to apply to the court.

Under the act, an employee cannot be punished for having filed a complaint and the employer is obliged to either respond to the complaint or to remedy it.

The second, Act No. 365/2004 Coll. on equal treatment in certain areas and on protection against discrimination (Anti-discrimination Act), governs how the principle of equal treatment is to be applied and provides tools for legal protection.

State inspection

In 2009 and 2010, the state labour inspection authority carried out nationwide checks on compliance with the law on equal treatment in order to discover how the anti-discrimination principles were being applied in industrial relations. The results of the checks on employers and employees who had filed petitions and complaints about violations of the equal treatment principles are summarised below. The discussion is supplemented by findings from investigations of other complaints that did not point directly to unequal treatment, but which uncovered violations in this area.

During 2009–2010, 183 complaints of discrimination at work were submitted to the labour inspectorate (74 in 2009 and 109 in 2010). Of these complaints, 25% were identified as legitimate, with the inspectorate recommending that 75% should be referred to the courts for a solution. This route related to cases where the labour inspectorate could not reach a decision for one or more of the following reasons:

• lack of evidence proving discrimination;

• subjective opinion of the complainant;

• different understanding of discrimination by the employer and the complainant;

• no evidence to support the employer’s response to the complainant’s allegation(s);

• refusal of other employees to provide witness information;

• a long time between the origin of the violation and its investigation (for example, employees often complain after their employment contract is terminated).

During their inspections, the inspectors informed employers, employee representatives and employees about:

• their rights and obligations;

• possibilities of legal protection;

• current procedures in cases of violence.

Inspection findings

Petitions and complaints by employees related mainly to discrimination in the following areas:

• remuneration;

• work organisation and demands for work;

• access to training;

• respect for the principle of gender equality;

• access to employment and opportunities for career development;

• reconciliation of work and family life;

• provision of catering facilities and time off for holidays.

The complaints and petitions also included cases where managers and supervisors were implicated in different forms of harassment or intimidation of their subordinates (threats, intimidation, degradation, abuse or even sexual harassment).

Most of the petitions drew attention to the violation of the principle of equal treatment in relation to performance of labour relations. Issues mainly involved:

• poor working position;

• failure to provide equal employment opportunities and career growth;

• pay discrimination;

• reimbursement of all entitlements;

• unsubstantiated demands regarding the quality of work;

• providing different working hours and holidays;

• increased control by the employer.

Many petitions resulted from bad interpersonal relations in the workplace, feelings of frustration and ‘involuntary’ termination of employment.

The highest number of petitions was in the education sector (management and control of the teachers’ activities, decisions about rewards, decisions about number of working hours, termination of employment). The next highest number was found in the public administration sector – municipalities where the complainants pointed to inappropriate behaviour of mayors towards their employees and towards the staff of municipal schools. In the manufacturing sector, the petitions dealt mostly with discriminatory behaviour by managers, mainly in the organisation of work, performance of overtime and provision of information.

Commentary

The increase in complaints during the reporting period 2009–2010 is related to the adoption of labour-saving economic measures and subsequent violations of the principles of industrial relations by employers. The increased incidence of discrimination is also linked to the situation in the labour market and unemployment, as the fear of losing employment can create undesirable interpersonal relations.

Kordosova Miroslava, RNDr