Most of the initiatives received by the Labor Inspectorate concern the public sector; however, the private sector is subject to more frequent inspections, as irregularities there tend to have more serious consequences, explained the Chief Labor Inspector in our ReForma podcast. He announced plans to strengthen the Inspectorate’s capacities, which would, among other things, enable better oversight of the public sector.
Among the topics discussed in the sixth episode of IA’s ReForma podcast with Srđan Simović, Chief Inspector of the Labor Inspectorate, were: the most common irregularities in public sector employment, how the Inspectorate decides whom to inspect, and why a greater number of regular inspections in the public sector are not being planned.
According to monitoring conducted by the Institute Alternative (IA) for 2023 and 2024, the Labor Inspectorate carried out up to three times fewer inspections in the public sector compared to the private one, with over 90% of public sector inspections being initiated based on citizen complaints. When asked why regular inspections in the public sector are not planned, Simović explained that the planning of such inspections depends on the Inspectorate’s internal capacities and risk assessments. He emphasized that many more irregularities are detected in the private sector and that irregularities in the public sector generally have “less severe consequences” for employees.
Speaking about irregularities identified in private sector inspections, Simović highlighted that the most frequent violations involve employers’ obligations — such as non-compliance with working hours or failing to register employees for mandatory social insurance — issues that typically do not occur in the public sector.
“In the public sector, we have mostly observed reports that employees do not meet the specific qualifications required for certain positions under the Rulebook on Systematization. We also receive reports of employees being unlawfully reassigned to other positions through annexes to their employment contracts. We will work on increasing our capacity, and once that happens, we’ll be able to perform more inspections in the public sector,” Simović said, adding that citizen initiatives account for 30 to 35% of all inspections annually, a significant portion of which pertain to the public sector.
Limiting Factors
Simović pointed out that in most public sector cases, the Inspectorate can only act upon procedural violations of the Labor Law, particularly those related to the offering and signing of annexes to employment contracts. He explained that such offers must be properly justified, which employers often fail to do when reassigning an employee to a different position. However, if there is some justification and employees remain dissatisfied, they are referred to the courts to exercise their rights.
He added that there are also certain irregularities the Labor Inspectorate can identify but cannot sanction or order corrective measures for.
“For example, we have companies whose statutes stipulate that the Government directly appoints executive directors. However, under the Law on Inspection Supervision, the Government cannot be the subject of our inspection. In such cases, we notify the Government that there are irregularities in the appointment process or in the conclusion of employment contracts with executive directors. We forward the information to the Government, which usually acts upon it,” said Simović, acknowledging that the Government is not legally obliged to do so.
When asked about the Inspectorate’s position that there is no obligation to publicly advertise a position if a person is transferred from another company, Simović said he wished the Labor Law were clearer and that it did not separate provisions concerning executive directors and their appointments. IA previously filed an initiative in 2023 over the case of Nikola Rovčanin, who was first transferred by agreement from Vodovod Pljevlja and then appointed as executive director of EPCG without a public call, which the Labor Inspectorate did not consider an irregularity.
“The essence of the matter is that they have the same status as any other employee. The Labor Law explicitly allows transfers between companies based on mutual agreements. The law does not distinguish between directors and other employees in that regard. Since we don’t require public postings for other employees, we can’t selectively apply that rule for directors,” Simović explained.
Recognition of Work Experience Based on an Annulled Hiring Process
Simović emphasized that when discussing illegal employment, one must understand that some irregularities in recruitment are purely procedural. He explained that, logically, if a person was hired without meeting the job requirements, their work experience should not be recognized. However, he added that such cases are often the result of procedural errors by the employer.
“The fact is that those individuals performed the duties of the position in question, and the law recognizes that as work experience. To avoid making final judgments ourselves, we consulted court practice and found cases where employees’ work experience was recognized, especially when they were not at fault for procedural mistakes during their hiring. We cannot hold employees responsible for errors they may not even be aware of. Still, this is an area that requires clearer legal definition,” Simović concluded.
Permanent Employment or Vulnerability to Influence – What the Amendments to the Civil Service Law Mean for Inspectors
The discussion also covered the employment of inspectors and the proposed amendments to the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, which are currently in parliamentary procedure. The amendments would change the appointment process and term of office for inspectors, aligning their status with that of other civil servants. These changes would also allow the head of an institution to reassign an inspector to any other position at any time.
Simović noted that until now, inspectors reapplied for their positions through public competitions every five years, but that existing inspectors usually retained their positions due to their experience and knowledge.
“The situation is now different — there is no public competition for inspector positions, but the heads of institutions have the authority to reassign us at will. That creates a certain level of insecurity, and that’s a fact. I’m afraid some ministries might abuse this possibility,” Simović concluded.
The sixth episode of the ReForma podcast is available at the link.