Foundation
The highest decision-making body in a public institution is the Council. It is comparable to the supervisory board of a company. The Council is composed of representatives of the interested public, representatives of service users, representatives of line ministries and representatives of employees.
Second tier body under the law
In accordance with the Law on the Organisation and Financing of Education and Training, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 12/1996, as amended, and the decisions of the Constitutional Court, Article 48 of the Council's competences stipulates that the Council of a public institution shall also decide on complaints relating to the rights, obligations and responsibilities of employees under the employment relationship.
This provision applies, by virtue of the principle of derogation of the higher legal norm, to all public kindergartens, public primary schools, public secondary schools and grammar schools, public higher education institutions and public boarding schools. Many public institutions and other associations, such as foundations, agencies, faculties, have a provision in their statutes that the highest collective institution (the Council of the institution) is also the second-instance appeal body. This is also followed in European legal practice, in line with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. This can be explicitly seen in the case (case 80) Campbell and Fell v. Great Britain from 1984 and also in the case of Ms. Airey v. Ireland, which shows that the State as an institution, in guaranteeing the right to justice, must ensure a normal and comparable number of opportunities. In this way, a more transparent starting point for exhaustion of all remedies is also advocated.
A second instance is not possible
Among all the associations listed above, a few public law institutions fall out where this provision does not apply due to a non-explicit reference in the legal norms. There, workers' complaints are either withdrawn without explanation or rejected on the grounds that the court of first instance or the labour and social welfare court, not the council of the establishment, is the body to which they have recourse.
 
Complainants of harassment, abuse of position, negligent work, alienation of private and public property, unequal treatment or being ignored thus have no recourse to the Council of the Institute. Given the notoriously busy nature of our courts and the unreasonable length of time involved in trials, followed by initiatives not to complain about minor matters (which, in turn, sends a message to suffer in silence and endure the irregularities), the impression is created that all is well in a public institution. But often it is not, because as we know, the truth is only known if both sides of the bell are heard. By removing the right of appeal to the Council of the institution, part of the much-mentioned transparency is thus removed.
The members of the highest decision-making body (the Council of the institution) are thus unilaterally presented with the idea that everything is in order and running smoothly in the institution of public administration. Afterwards, we read from the media how such a body operates, where criminal reports are written, findings are made about the non-transparent use of taxpayers' money, the privileges of holders of public powers, the mobbing of workers and service users.
If they were to deal with five or ten workers' complaints a year, the members of the Council would find out that not everything is as the management represents it in an institution or other association, if they were to deal with five or ten workers' complaints a year. The high rewards for managers for 'excellent' management of the institution would probably fall away from there.
The principle of equality before the law
The situation where the majority of workers have the possibility to complain to the Institution Council or other associations, but a minority do not, also violates the constitutional principle of equality. My proposal is not based on abstract principles alone. I have a legal interest which stems from personal interactions as well as from observing what is happening in one such institution where.
material benefits are sold to individuals at token prices or simply given away
large material investments are made bypassing the public procurement system
disposes of employees' private property
hinders employees from exercising their basic human rights, etc.
I do not need to outline in my reply the obsolescence of the Public Institutions Act and its imminent amendment. I am aware of that and I know that there will be no bread from this flour for a long time to come.