Bank is condemned for dismissing an employee who took action against the inst...
It is unlawful to carry out acts that constitute, directly or indirectly, persecution or reprisal against an employee for exercising his right of access to the Judiciary. This was the understanding of the 2nd Panel of the Superior Labor Court when rejecting an appeal by Caixa Econômica Federal against a decision that condemned it to reinstate an employee in a position of trust who had been removed from his position for having filed a complaint against the bank. Disclosure / CEF The employee was fired after filing a lawsuit against the bank . According to the process, the author held a position of trust as channel supervisor, but lost his special position on 1/28/2016, after the bank was notified, of the labor complaint. The employee claimed that the dismissal was an act of retaliation, as he did not have access to the motivation, which would be necessary, as his selection was based on objective criteria. In the first instance, the employee's request was rejected, but the second instance court understood that the bank employee had been removed from his position due to retaliation. According to the Plenary, although positions of trust are freely appointed and removed, these acts cannot occur in an authoritarian and discriminatory manner. When analyzing the records, Minister José Roberto Pimenta stated that the Regional Court concluded that the dismissal was the result of a retaliatory act, due to the filing of a labor complaint against the company. "This factual premise is not subject to review in this appeal instance of an extraordinary nature, under the terms of Precedent 126 of the TST," he said. According to the judge, the situation should not be confused with the discretionary power relating to the eventual dismissal of an employee from the commissioned position he holds."In this case, the objective was retaliation against Phone Number List the worker who sought his rights from this Specialized Court, an act that goes beyond the legality of the employer's directive power", he stated. For the rapporteur, this is a true abuse of the employer's rights, which goes against the principles of good faith and social function that should govern employment contracts. With information from the TST advisory. RR-10814-2 Company dismisses cipeiro alleging "principle fact", but is condemned Without proof of the closure of the establishment or stoppage due to a state act, the 10th Labor Court of João Pessoa ordered a spinning company to compensate a worker with the Internal Accident Prevention Commission (Cipa), dismissed under an allegation of forceb guarantees for workers holding Cipa Norasit Kaewsai/123RF The author worked as a mechanic and had been elected as a representative member of the company's Cipa workers, which gave him job stability. Despite this, the company dismissed him, arguing for technical reasons. The employer claimed to have paralyzed the entire manufacturing sector and maintained only the administrative sectors. To justify the termination of the employment contract, she first asserted the thesis of the "prince's fact" — a CLT hypothesis that assigns the State the responsibility to pay severance pay to workers if it carries out an administrative act that makes business activity unfeasible. In other words, the company said that state regulations for combating and preventing Covid-19 would have caused the worker to be laid off.
https://asbdirectory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/qqq.jpg
However, judge considered that the State's actions in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis would not constitute the "prince's fact", but merely a manifestation of the need to protect the population's health. "The action, in this case, is more in the form of a duty than, properly, in the form of a power of an act of empire", he pointed out. The 6th Labor Court of Fortaleza had already adopted a similar understanding in May this year. In the alternative, the employer also stated that the health crisis was a reason for force majeure, which would have caused the dismissal. But the judge recalled that the application of such a hypothesis would require that the establishment had been closed, which was not proven by the defendant. Thus, as the mechanic was a member of Cipa, he could only have been dismissed for disciplinary, technical, economic or financial reasons, duly demonstrated by the company. "None of the legal hypotheses was verified", pointed out the magistrate. The company was ordered to pay the salary amounts corresponding to the period between the date of dismissal and the end of the provisional employment guarantee period. Compensation was also established relating to the 13th salary, the difference between full vacations and proportional vacations, in addition to the due severance pay for dismissal without just cause. The author was represented by lawyers Rafael Pontes Vital and Gabriel Pontes Vital , from Pontes Vital Advocacia.
頁:
[1]