The Municipality of Pljevlja, pursuant to a ruling from last year, paid the former Secretary of the Secretariat for General Affairs and the Secretariat for Inspection Affairs, Joka Đačić (DPS), 4.479 euros with default interest from the date of the expert assessment until payment for unused annual leave in the period from 1 January 1 to 2019 December 31.
The municipality had to pay 525 euros to Joko Đačić for the costs of the proceedings.
The Basic Court ruling states that Đačić was unable to use her annual leave in 2019, 2020, and 2021 due to the specific nature of the service she worked for and the inability to secure a replacement during the coronavirus epidemic.
The court found that the then Mayor of Pljevlja did not issue a decision on the use of her annual leave for 2019. For that year of 33 working days, 20 days remained unused, and she did not use her annual leave for 2020 and 2021, although decisions had been issued. Until mid-May 2019, the Mayor of Pljevlja was Mirko Đačić, when he was succeeded by Igor Golubović.
The court found that Đačić could not, even though decisions were made on the use of annual leave for 2020 and 2021, use the leave due to the workload and the inability to find a replacement.
"Based on the presented evidence, the court did not establish that the plaintiff was at fault for the damage caused. In accordance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Decision on the Organization and Mode of Operation of Local Administration of the Municipality of Pljevlja, which was applicable until 12 May 5, the work of the secretariat is managed by a secretary who is appointed and dismissed by the mayor, and the secretary is accountable to the mayor for his or her work and the work of the body he or she manages. The mayor of the Municipality of Pljevlja did not issue a decision on the use of the plaintiff's annual leave as secretary of the Secretariat for General Administration, or the Secretariat for Inspection Affairs for 2023, and issued decisions on the use of annual leave for 2019 and 2020, which the plaintiff could not use through no fault of her own due to the volume of work and the inability to find a replacement," the court's reasoning states.
The court notes that the employer decides on the timing of annual leave, based on the annual leave plan, with prior consultation with the employee, depending on the needs of the work process.
"The employee is not obliged to submit a request for the use of annual leave and that the burden of proving the employer's guilt is not on the plaintiff because, when not using the employee's inalienable legal right, it is assumed, and the employer has the burden of proving the absence of guilt, that the plaintiff was not issued a decision on the use of annual leave for 2019, that according to the decisions on the use of annual leave for 2020 and 2021, she could not use the annual leave due to the volume of work and the inability to find a replacement for her and that an employee who was not provided with the use of annual leave before the termination of employment is entitled to compensation for damages in accordance with the provisions of Art. 86, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Labor Law, that there is no fault of the plaintiff for the damage incurred, nor has the defendant proven this in this specific case," the verdict states.
Bonus video:
