Vezi raport EN

found both in Romanian and Hungarian languages, thus offering all people the possibility to unrestrained access to public interest information.

29. Employment. Child care leave. Gender The complainant reports the humiliating, unjust, degrading and discriminatory treatment she was subjected to upon her return to work from child care leave. The petitioner, employed as General Director with extended responsibilities as a Commercial Director within the defendant part, shows that she has been subjected by the defendant to humiliating, unjust, degrading and discriminatory treatment upon her return to work from child care leave. During the child care leave until the child turns 1, on 09.10.2014, the petitioner was summoned to the defendant’s headquarters where she was verbally informed on the liquidation of the manage- ment positions she was occupying and on the fact that colleagues in Centrofarm took over the associated responsibilities. The petitioner was recommended to look for work because “your position as a General Director is out” and, because she however did not perform well and showed no interest in work since she went home to care for her child, although other

colleagues had babies and worked from home, and she has been told: “Things might not have slipped so bad if you didn’t have this child and continued working”. From the very first day of work, in a discussion with the employer’s representatives on her return to work, she was informed on the following: her reputation will be affected “it is a pity that employers who contributed to your professional development speak bad of you. This happens because such an attitude as yours is not of nature to generate any sympathy”; nothing good will come out of this situation “You won’t win anything, believe me, out of all this rattle” and the petitioner would supposedly have to suffer the most hostile working conditions ever, especially mental ones “nobody will like you because I will see to this. I will call for a general meeting with the whole company and I will say: Raluca has no job here, she keeps fighting with us, we will park her in office 3 and nobody will be allowed to talk to her because you are not her subor- dinates. The matter ends here. You will be an outcast in this office. It is very burdensome. Do

you understand? So you don’t afford to do this. You will go crazy. It is a pity.” The petitioner shows she is the only employee of the defendant who does not have a company mobile phone, laptop/computer, as she was forced to hand them back upon her return to work. She is the only employee who is not allowed to read or write anything, except draw on napkins, paper coffee mugs or bits of paper. She is not allowed to have a notebook or to speak on the phone and she is constantly reminded she is the only employee that has to do nothing and she will be fired as soon as the law will allow it. The petitioner is the only employee who does not have access to the internal network, to the timekeeping system, vacation system, and she is the only employee who is not allowed to work.

The defendant says that, as a result of the economic state of our society, the whole manage- ment system was replaced, 10 people were fired and the company is administered by another company. The petitioner was the only one not fired because of the legal status which did not allow for her to be fired. Taking into account the exceptional situation of the petitioner and that of the employer - that is all management positions have been liquidated, the company does nothing more than fulfil its legal obligations.

The Steering board Resolution no. 88/03.02.2016 noted a fact of discrimination from the part of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 2 par. 1, Art. 2 par. 5 corroborated with Art. 7 letter a of the Government Ordinance no. 137/2000 on the prevention and punishment

Examples of the Council Steering board’s case law                                                     61