|
|
As there was no demonstration of any danger in the delay in judicial provision, the 6th Panel of the Superior Labor Court rejected the request of a supermarket chain to revoke the order of immediate reinstatement of an employee to employment, which was given by the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region (RS). Disclosure The supermarket was unable to revoke the worker's reinstatement of employment Disclosure In 2006, WMS Supermercados do Brasil LTDA (Walmart chain) established the Guidance for Improvement Policy. The norm provided that workers could only be fired after going through three phases of development. This procedure, however, was not followed before the dismissal of the employee, who filed a labor lawsuit, in which he requested the annulment of the dismissal and reinstatement to employment, in addition to the payment of corresponding amounts.
The requests were met by the TRT of the 4th Phone Number List Region, whose understanding was that the internal rule established by the employer adheres to the employment contract as the most beneficial condition for the worker, being mandatory to comply with to legitimize dismissal without just cause, under penalty of nullity. of the act and reinstatement to employment. The regional court emphasized that it was not a question of recognition of stability, but merely the right of the employee to be subject to the Guidance Policy for Improvement, established by the employer, before being dismissed. The company, in turn, filed an ordinary appeal against the TRT's ruling, requesting provisional relief of incidental urgency and, consequently, the revocation of the order for the worker's immediate reinstatement to employment. The supermarket chain claimed that it maintains its operation throughout the national territory, with jurisprudential divergence between the TRTs on the obligation of reinstatement, with the issue being affected by the TST in an incident of repetitive appeal.
Another argument presented was that the immediate reinstatement of the employee would burden the company, forcing it to keep him on its staff without there being a vacancy and without a final and unappealable decision. These arguments did not convince the 6th Panel, which unanimously decided against the company. For the rapporteur of the appeal, minister Kátia Magalhães Arruda, there is no danger in the delay in judicial provision and the fact that the reinstated employee receives a salary in return for the services provided does not burden the company. Regarding the issue being affected by an incident of repetitive appeal that has not yet been judged, the minister considered it prudent to observe the principle of in dubio pro operario , which benefits the employee, highlighting that there is no irreparable damage to the supermarket chain. With information from the TST press office .
|
|
發表於 2024-3-9 18:42:44