| Popis: |
Status delavke na porodniškem dopustu po pravu EU ni točno urejen. Položaj delavke je urejen z določbami, ki urejajo položaj delavcev na splošno. Primarno pravo iz tega področja je vsebovano v besedilu člena 45 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, ki ureja pravico delavca do prostega gibanja na območju EU. Člen 45 odpravlja diskriminacijo na podlagi nacionalnega državljanstva v zvezi z zaposlitvijo, plačilom in drugimi zaposlitvenimi in delovnimi pogoji. Pri tem je potrebno upoštevati omejitve na podlagi javnega reda, javne varnosti in javnega zdravja. Položaj delavca je podrobneje urejen z Direktivo 2004/38, ki predstavlja vir sekundarnega prava EU. Vendar se tudi Direktiva 2004/38, ne nanaša na poseben položaj delavke na porodniškem dopustu. Zato je Sodišče s sodbo v zadevi Jessy Saint Prix vzpostavilo sodno prakso na področju socialnih pravic delavk, ki niso državljanke države gostiteljice. Dejstvo je namreč, da so socialne pravice v EU neločljivo povezane s statusom delavke, oziroma s priznavanjem le tega. Zato je v zadevi Jessy Saint Prix Sodišče moralo najprej ugotoviti, ali gospa Saint Prix izpolnjuje pogoje za pridobitev statusa “delavca” oziroma, ali so določbe člena 7(3) Direktive 2004/38 navedene taksativno ali ne. V diplomskem delu ugotavljam, da je Sodišče po preučitvi vseh primarnih in sekundarnih pravnih virov sprejelo stališče, da pogoji za ohranitev statusa delavca, ki so navedeni v določbi člena 7(3) Direktive 2004/38 niso navedeni taksativno, saj je pojem “delavca” avtonomen pojem prava EU in ga je potrebno razlagati široko. To pomeni, da pojma “delavca” ne morejo zožati določbe sekundarnega prava. Sodišče je odločilo, da ženska, ki je začasno prostovoljno prenehala z delom in iskanjem dela zaradi omejitev visoke nosečnosti in posledic rojstva otroka, ne izgubi statusa delavca, če se na delo vrne v razumnem roku. Razumni rok se določi na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje in prakse uveljavljene v vsaki državi članici. Nadalje v diplomskem delu ugotavljam, da primer Jessy Saint Prix ni osamljen in da se je s podobnimi primeri v preteklosti srečevalo tudi Vrhovno sodišče Združenih držav Amerike. V zadevi Gedulding proti Aiello, je navedeno sodišče sprejelo odločitev, da ženska ni upravičena do prejemanja nadomestila za primer odsotnosti z dela, zaradi začasne nezmožnosti za delo, če je le-ta posledica normalne nosečnosti. Po mnenju Vrhovnega sodišča ZDA v tem primeru ne gre za diskriminacijo na podlagi spola. Zaključujem, da je področje socialne varnosti, ki pokriva noseče ženske in ženske, ki so pred kratkim rodile, v večinski pristojnosti držav članic. Toda pravo EU preko določb o prostem gibanju in določb o status delavca posredno vpliva tudi na področje teh pravic in širi njihov obseg. Status of worker on maternity leave under EU legislation is not exact. Position of a female worker on maternity leave is determined with general provisions about status of workers. Primary law on this matter is contained in article 45 TFEU, which govern the right to free movement of worker in the EU. Article 45 TFEU eliminates any discrimination based on nationality. Although it is necessary to take into consideration restrictions which are based on public order, public safety and public health. The status of worker is also regulated with Directive 2004/38. The Directive 2004/38 is a source of secondary law. But as said for the primary legislation also the secondary legislation, does not contain any provisions about status of a female worker on maternity leave. Therefore the European Court of justice established an important case law, with the judgement in Jessy Saint Prix case. Jessy Saint Prix case is very important for pregnant workers, who are not citizens of the host member state and their rights to social benefits. Under EU legislation the right to social benefits in host member state is bound to a status of worker. Therefore the ECJ had to determined wheter or not ms. Saint Prix is a worker under EU legislation and wheter or not are the conditions laid down in article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38 exhaustive. In my thesis I note, that the ECJ, after taking into consideration all primary and secondary legislation, came to the conclusion, that the conditions laid down in article 7(3) of the Directive 2004/38 are not meant exhaustively. The ECJ explains that the concept of worker under EU law is autonomous. That actually means that it has to be interpreted broadly and that the concept of worker can not be diminished by the secondary legislation. ECJ concludes that a woman who voluntarly gives up work, because of the constrains of late pregnancy and child birth, still remains a worker under article 45 of TFEU if she returnes to work in reasonable period of time. The reasonable period of time is determined with the national legislation and practice of each member state. Furthermore in my thesis I note, that the Jessy saint Prix case is one out of many similar cases around the globe. Even the Supreme Court of United States of America adjudicated in similar case. In case Gedulding vs. Aiello the Supreme Court decided, that a woman is not justified to a compensation for a temporary absence from work which was caused by normal pregnancy. Supreme Court in its decision explains, that this case does not represent a case of sex discrimination. To conclude, the field of social security, which protects women who are pregnant and women who have recently given birth, is mostly under national jurisdiction of member states. Nevertheless EU law, with its provisions about free movement and status of worker, also indirectly affects the field of social security rights and expands their range. |
