Three members of the grant commission of the Employment Agency from February 2016 to February 2018 are suing to be paid 200 euros each for membership in that commission for a period of two years. According to the expert's opinion, the work in this commission was worth 15.921,23 euros per month (November 2017), when the monthly salary of these officials was around 500 euros.
That lawsuit was initiated by Stanko Laković, Gracijela Rakonjac and Nevena Šuković.
These commissions were formed in 2016 by the then director of the Institute, Vukica Jelić, and the problem arose because the decision itself did not specify the amounts of compensation for members, which left room for free interpretation. So the experts multiplied the fee amount by the number of processed applications - requests and received figures of over ten thousand euros per month. The members of the commissions received variable wages for that work.
After the political changes in 2020, the new management and director Goran Folić also formed the same commissions, but with a precisely determined monthly fee of 120 euros. The same commission members who are now demanding monthly fees of over ten thousand euros for the period from 2016 to 2018, after 2020, accepted that they do the same work in the commission for 120 euros.
Already paid through variables
Yesterday, the hearing, which at times was on the verge of an incident, continued before the Basic Court.
The representative of the Institute, lawyer Nebojša Batrićević, requested that economic and financial expert Jovan Varajić be given a new order to perform additional expert testimony in accordance with the Government's decision on the amounts of fees in commissions, where the monthly fee is 120 euros. He asked for it because the plaintiffs refer to it in the lawsuit itself, and not a single expert so far has taken that decision into account. Batrićević rejected the possibility that the plaintiffs are entitled to any compensation, because they have already been paid for that work through the variables.
Judge Jelena Adžić accepted his request for additional expert testimony, while prosecutors' lawyer Nikola Vukčević opposed it, stating that during the three years of this dispute before the Agency for the Peaceful Resolution of Labor Disputes and the Court, two experts performed expert opinions with eight variants of findings and that this will lead to further delays. procedure.
Batrićević stated that only with this expert opinion would the relevant and correct amount of compensation be finally determined, which would eventually go to the plaintiffs if they prove the legal basis that they are entitled to compensation at all.
Accepted the request that the future judgment would not fall
Addressing the prosecutors, Judge Adžić said that she accepts this request of the defense as well, so that its rejection would not be a reason for her future verdict to be challenged at a higher court instance.
At the beginning of the hearing, Batrićević asked the expert whether he had inspected the case files, to which he replied that he had. Batrićević then asked him if he had read the motion in which the prosecutors referred to the Government's decision on the commissions, and that he should have made a finding on potential compensation in relation to it because "the expert should not just be a digital expert".
Judge Adžić did not allow such a question stating that the attorney insults the expert because he calls him a digitron.
Expert Varajić replied that he made a finding based on what the Court asked him to do and that he would do it even if asked to do the calculation in accordance with the Government's decision on commissions.
He said that he submitted to the court several possible variants for the calculation of those fees, as well as that the compensation ranges from three to 200 thousand per member, depending on the methodology, and that the court will decide on it.
"I made the finding and opinion in accordance with the task of the court and according to the decision of the defendant, and it is not mine to interpret the decision of the defendant (Institute), and the task of the court was not to make the finding according to the decision of the Government. If the court orders that such a finding be made, I will do it in a very short time according to the precise task of the court", Varajić said.
Judge Adžić scheduled the continuation of the hearing for January 22.
Commissions were subject to machinations
Both sides in the dispute submitted to "Vijesta" documentation about these and similar cases, from which it can be seen that the formation of various commissions with officials and employees, as well as the payment of fees for members, was not regulated at all in the past decades. This led to a huge number of disputes and, at the time, great losses for the Institute and the state budget, which reimbursed those costs.
In the last year, the Institute won at first instance four disputes for the payment of benefits in earlier commissions, in which some claims, similar to this one from Laković, Rakonjac and Šuković, were worth around 150 thousand euros, so they expect that the complete rejection of the claim will also this ended at the Basic Court or a higher court.
In the documentation of the Institute, it is stated that the consent for the project of employment of persons with disabilities (grant scheme) was given by the then Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare and the Government, which authorized the Ministry of Finance to provide money for its implementation as well as for the payment of grants to commissions. Therefore, they believe that the only possible and correct way of calculating possible compensation is in accordance with the Government's decision, which defines the amount at 120 euros, if the legal basis is proven.
In the submissions of the Institute, it is stated that Laković and Rakonjac later agreed to work in the same commissions for the same job for 120 euros per month, and that in this dispute for the previous commission, they do not want to lower the compensation for the same work below 10.000 euros per month, requesting that "an expert calculations and a few more euros over, which this expert - like the one before him - is not a problem at all".
Seven members in 2020 asked for 780 thousand
From the part of the documentation sent to "Vijesti" by Laković, it can be seen that on September 29, 2020, a group of seven members of the commission initiated a dispute before the Agency for the Peaceful Resolution of Disputes in which they requested the payment of compensation for work in the commission for a mandate of two years from February 2016 to February 2018.
Individual requests amount from 55 to 180 thousand euros, depending on the period of work in the commission, that is, for seven of them in the total amount of 780 thousand euros. It is also stated that they offered the Institute's management, during an attempt at a peaceful solution, to reduce the request by ten percent, as well as to waive additional interest, in order to save the Institute money and court costs.
They also state that they decided to file a lawsuit when they learned that the Institute lost a court case at the Basic Court in March 2020 due to non-payment of commission membership fees, as well as that the judgment was confirmed by the Higher Court in June of the same year, which became legally binding. The amount of compensation awarded and the basis of the lawsuit are not specified, but only the number of the judgment.
According to an internet search of the judgments of the High Court, this judgment refers to the lawsuit of the BV worker and that the amount of compensation awarded is 10.928 euros for work in the commission that controlled 13 different projects of the Institute in the period from March 2016. The court then concluded that she is entitled to compensation per project and not one in total, because "she submitted reports for each project individually, so in accordance with the cited provisions of the aforementioned decision, she is entitled to compensation for each project individually".
However, with this new lawsuit, the plaintiffs believe that they are entitled to compensation for each processed claim within the same project.
Vojvodić: SDT needs to be involved, threats will not scare us
The President of the Management Board of the Institute, Dejan Vojvodić, who is the authorized representative of that institution in this dispute, told "Vijesta" yesterday that it is the duty of the Management Board to take care of state property and how the money at the Institute's disposal is spent.
In the specific case, when it comes to almost a million claims of several employees of the Institute for the period from 2016 to 2018, Vojvodić states that it is not disputed that employees receive compensation for work in commissions if they follow the law.
"It is disputed that the employees had monthly salaries for the disputed period of two years, in the net amounts of 480 to 550 euros on a monthly basis, and that the Basic Court gave an order for an expert opinion where the amounts of compensation on a monthly level were expertized in the amount of 10 to 15 thousand euros with default interest, which in my opinion is absurd and contrary to the Government's decision, which determines the amount of compensation for work in commissions in accordance with its regulations and with its express consent. As president of the Supervisory Board, I had the need to appear at a couple of hearings because it is illogical for employees to demand 200.000 euros each for working in a commission that is fixed for two years, and the monthly salaries were 480-550 euros per member of the commission," Vojvodić said.
He states that it is also absurd that the court rejected the proposal of their representative to hear as witnesses the makers of disputed decisions - the former directors of the Institute.
"It is obvious that the Special Prosecutor's Office will also have to deal with such anomalies in our society," Vojvodic said.
He said that the individuals who sued the Institute worked in the period after 2013, for which the new board of directors discovered several illegalities related to the payment of money intended for the professional rehabilitation of persons with disabilities to persons who were not entitled to it.
"The question arises as to how the same employees illegally made decisions and paid financial aid to disabled persons from employment contrary to the law. These are just some of the things that the competent authorities will have to deal with, because state money was illegally allocated to persons who have no right to it," said Vojvodic.
He states that the threatening letters and invitations he received will not influence him to stop performing the job of president of the Supervisory Board in accordance with the law and in the interest of the state.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
