Labor Inspectorate finds irregularities in "Zelenil": Two advisors appointed contrary to regulations

The Labor Inspectorate found that advisors to the director of the city enterprise "Zelenilo" Nemanja Gajović - MV and MT - were hired for these positions in violation of applicable regulations.

"Vijesti" was informed about this by the whistleblower of that company.

He also submitted to the editorial office a finding from the Labor Inspectorate confirming that Gajović "illegally, without a competition, employed two of his advisors."

"After the acting inspector conducted a supervision at the supervised entity, irregularities were found in terms of violation of the provisions of Article 20, concerning the fulfillment of special conditions for the employee MV and Article 54 of the Labor Law for the employee M. T," states the document, which "Vijesti" has access to.

"Zelenil" confirmed to the editorial staff that the Inspection had found irregularities, adding that "they will all be properly eliminated."

The "Zelenila" union claimed yesterday that Gajović and his advisors had distinguished themselves by "anti-union discrimination."

As they stated, after Gajović's appointment, they had high expectations - from him and the new management of the company.

They also claimed that problems related to anti-union discrimination "started from the moment Gajović was elected," adding that his advisors particularly stood out.

The "Zelenila" Trade Union also claimed in a statement yesterday that two disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against one of the members of their Executive Board, where "in one case he was proven not guilty".

"And on the second one he was punished for taking a few liters of water from the tap located in the courtyard of 'Zelenilo'...".

They also state that there were "serious errors and omissions, starting with fuel theft, where no one who was in charge of that part of the job suffered any consequences."

"Vijesti" previously wrote that the management of "Zelenil" knew about the case and planned to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee suspected of doing this, but he resigned before that.