In September 2003, the the Hellenic Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) sought to employ staff on fixed-term contracts which provided for them to be dismissed if they became pregnant. This provision was later withdrawn after protests from trade unions, the General Secretariat for Equality and politicians. This is the latest in a series of cases in Greece involving discrimination against pregnant workers.
Download article in original language : GR0311102NEL.DOC
In September 2003, the the Hellenic Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA) sought to employ staff on fixed-term contracts which provided for them to be dismissed if they became pregnant. This provision was later withdrawn after protests from trade unions, the General Secretariat for Equality and politicians. This is the latest in a series of cases in Greece involving discrimination against pregnant workers.
In late September 2003, the Hellenic Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA), a body operating under state control, hired a number of staff under private-law employment contracts with a fixed term of eight months, to meet seasonal and other periodical or temporary needs that cannot be met by the regular staff. However, the contract that the newly employed staff were asked to sign included a clause stating that 'in the case of a woman in a state of pregnancy who is unable due to the nature of her work to carry out her duties, the employment contract shall be discontinued, with the possibility that she may be rehired after the birth of the child, provided that needs exist in the service.' Half of the staff hired (21 out of 44) are women, most of whom are young.
This provision, which is obviously unfavourable to pregnant women, provoked a very strong reaction from the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE), the General Secretariat for Equality and representatives of political parties, which requested that the relevant clause be removed immediately from the contracts. The matter also formed the subject of a complaint to the European Commission, since the clause was regarded as a blatant violation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women. GSEE wrote a letter stressing that the rules protecting maternity are rules of 'jus conges'- ie a fundamental principle which cannot be waived by a contract - which establish a right to protection not only for the pregnant woman but also for the unborn child. Even if a mother freely enters into an agreement to this effect with an employer, stated GSEE, the employment relationship may not be terminated on grounds of pregnancy but only suspended, and the employer must continue to employ the mother after the period during which she was protected, until the term for which she was hired has elapsed. In GSEE's view, the clause contained in the ELGA contracts was invalid and should be removed.
The strong pressures exerted by the trade unions, along with the interventions by the political parties, eventually forced the ELGA to revoke this clause from the contracts.
The ELGA case has again highlighted the serious problems faced by working women, and mothers in particular, in seeking and retaining jobs. Critics claim that employers, when hiring a woman, often use as a criterion for selection her intention to have a family or not, thus restricting women's employment opportunities. At the same time, women employed under fixed-term contracts or 'works contracts', which often conceal open-ended contracts, are at particular risk of having their labour rights violated, it is argued. There have been many reports of complaints by pregnant employees of being threatened with dismissal when they tell their employer that they are pregnant, because the designation of a contract as a works contract or fixed-term contract opens the way for violation of the provisions of labour legislation protecting female employees.
A recent example of such a complaint involved a female employee of the municipality of Paxoi (a small Greek island) employed under a 'works contract', who was dismissed on grounds of unjustified absence due to pregnancy and childbirth. This case also brought immediate and strong reactions. GSEE called her dismissal by the mayor of Paxoi unacceptable and illegal. Furthermore, in a letter it sent to the mayor, GSEE demanded that the termination of the woman’s contract be rescinded on the grounds that it violates the principle of equality, and that the amounts due to her be paid and that her employment status be clarified.
Commentators argue that the above cases highlight unequal and unfair treatment of working women, at a time when motherhood is in need of support and help, in view of the serious demographic problems Greece is facing. At the same time, it is claimed, such cases bring to light problems concealed by flexible forms of work and temporary employment, particularly as concerns the rights of working women and mothers-to-be.
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2003), ELGA case highlights pregnancy discrimination, article.
