Fundamental Rights Section Section, Chapter on People with Disabilities and Austrian laws on protection for special victims, p. 212, point 10.1.3, German version). 3.4 Discrimination on the ground of age 3.4.1 Nobody responsible for alleged discrimination on the ground of age against a bank official working in a hived-off undertaking? (VA BD/356-V/06) Ms. N.N. is 57 years old and has been working as a bank official for BAWAG-PSK for 38 years. The complainant was informed by her superior one day that she would be transferred from the following week onwards to a 'staff development pool' and therefore not perform fixed duties at a specific place, but work as a 'reserve pool employee' at different places, depending on the respective requirements and in the case of capacity bottlenecks. BAWAG-PSK stated that the measure was justified, because headquarters staff had to be cut. The complainant was chosen, because she was the oldest staff member in her working area. Later, she heard that three other colleagues, who were the oldest staff members of their working areas, were chosen to be redeployed to that pool. Neither her superior nor the works council had been informed about that measure. As the complainant did not want to agree to her transfer, she was faced with the alternative of accepting the measure or agreeing to a reduction of her weekly working hours and pay to 60% and of retiring as soon as possible. After the employer's initial refusal, she was provided with the documents she had requested in this connection. They included, among others, an 'application for a reduction in weekly working hours' and a draft of the decision granting the application. Since the employer requested a reply from the complainant within a few days, she immediately turned to several members of the Federal Equal Treatment Commission, which is responsible for the public service, and to the Anwaltschaft Gleichbehandlung-Bund für Bundesbeamte (Ombudsman for Equal Treatment of Federal Officials) in the Federal Ministry of Finance. All these bodies, however, declined a treatment of her complaint on the grounds that they were not responsible for public employees working for hived-off undertakings. The complainant then turned to the Anwältin für Gleichbehandlung in der Arbeitswelt (Ombudsman for Equal Treatment in the World of Work), responsible for the private sector of commerce and industry, who also declined a treatment of her complaint on the same grounds, but then took action for the complainant without finally resolving the responsibility issue. In most cases of alleged discrimination, the competent bodies must take immediate action. This also applies to the present case: The reduction in weekly working hours announced by the employer and rejected by the complainant and/or the envisaged transfer to a pool was to be implemented with immediate effect. The Bundes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (Federal Act on Equal Treatment in the Public Service) provides a range of contact points for these cases: Equal opportunities advisors act as first contact points in the individual sectors. Their 91