|
|
Paying additional risk to workers who operate private port terminals does not follow the principle of equality, as they do not perform the same function as port workers who work in public ports. This was the understanding of the nd Panel of the Superior Labor Court when rejecting the payment of additional port risk to an operations assistant at the Vale SA terminal in the Port of Vitória (ES). Disclosure Private terminal assistant does not get port risk premium Disclosure The employee of the private mixed-use port terminal filed a lawsuit asking, among other things, that the company pay him the additional port risk provided for in Law ,The first instance court dismissed the request as unfounded. In turn, the Regional Labor Court of the th Region ordered the company to pay the risk premium, calculated at % of the ordinary hourly wage. According to the TRT, given identical working conditions between those who work in public ports and in private terminals, “it is not possible to guarantee certain legal protection to some and deny it to others”, as the objective of the rule would be to protect and compensation for work under given risk conditions. The rapporteur of Vale's review appeal to the TST, minister José Roberto Freire Pimenta, recalled that, as of , with Law ,, Companhias Docas are managers of port activities.
Thus, its employees no longer Greece Phone Number received the additional in question, considering that they were no longer subject to the risk of port operations. The rapporteur also highlighted that the topic does not require further discussion in the TST, as it is pacified in Jurisprudential Guidance (OJ) of Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes (SDI-), which provides for the additional benefit only for port workers who work in ports. organized, “cannot be extended to those that operate a private terminal” – which includes private mixed-use ports. Pimenta understood that the TRT-, by condemning the company to pay the additional port risk, disrespected Jurisprudential Guideline No. of SbDI-, therefore; and granted the review appeal to reinstate the first degree sentence.This has occurred not only with the creation of obstacles so that Labor Court bodies can exercise adequate control over the validity of labor standards, but also with the adoption of legal theses, in various fields, with binding effects, in the form of mandatory judicial precedents, based on the assumptions of total market freedom and the deregulation of labor relations.
This stance by the STF has drawn the attention of the legal community for two main reasons: first, due to the exacerbated role it has taken in the judicialization of labor disputes; second, by the radical change in its jurisprudence, leading to the systematic emptying of the Constitution and Labor Law. Recent study, entitled "Political justice of capital — The deconstruction of Labor Law through judicial decisions" [] , doctoral thesis defended by magistrate Grijalbo Fernandes Coutinho, former president of the National Association of Labor Justice Magistrates (Anamatra ), demonstrates in a comprehensive and detailed way the movement underway at the Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court, the highest body of the Brazilian Judiciary, with the Constitution began to adopt a moderate labor jurisprudence. In many aspects, it formed a more progressive interpretative orientation than that of the Superior Labor Court itself [] . By constructing and reconstructing the meanings of constitutional and legal norms, the STF ended up contributing to consolidating important social labor achievements. But the fact is that, from -, with greater depth from - and even more radically between -, the Court began to bury its own jurisprudence.
|
|
發表於 16:09:54