Chinese (Simplified) 
Chinese (Traditional) 
English 
French 
Alemão 
Italian 
Japanese 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
4 min read
0 comments
The TRT-3 decision recognizes the right of a worker who remained standing for 16 years without a place to rest and reinforces the duty of companies to ensure ergonomics.
A recent decision by the Regional Labor Court of the 3nd Region (TRT-3) once again drew attention to a silent but frequent problem in the corporate environment: continuous work standing up, without breaks and without a suitable place to rest.
In the process 0010093-32.2021.5.03.0178, a worker sued the company where she had worked for more than 16 years, claiming that she was forced to remain standing throughout the working day, without access to seats or appropriate places to rest. The court recognized the moral damage and ordered the company to pay compensation, understanding that the employer failed to fulfill its basic duty to ensure the health, safety and dignity of the employee.
The case that became a symbol of ergonomic neglect
During the process, it was proven that the employee carried out her activities statically, standing, without changing posture and without access to chairs, even during periods of low demand.
The situation lasted for more than 16 years, leading the TRT to recognize violation of human dignity and the principle of labor protection.
-
Nubank faces crisis after layoffs and union pressure for a return to hybrid work.
-
More than two-thirds of app drivers and delivery workers reveal they work out of necessity and live under constant pressure in exhausting and poorly paid shifts in Brazil.
-
Labor Court reaffirms: selling vacation days must be a free decision; company is penalized for forcing employee to give up their rest period.
-
A Brazilian state shocks workers by adjusting the minimum wage, surprising them with a value never before seen in the country.
For the judges, the company's conduct demonstrated disregard for basic ergonomics and safety standards, putting profit above Worker's health.
The decision emphasized that “the employer must ensure minimum conditions of comfort and breaks that allow the employee’s physical and mental recovery,” under penalty of civil responsability.
What does the legislation say about seating and ergonomics?
A Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) and Regulatory Standards of the Ministry of Labor, Specially to NR-17 (Ergonomics), determine that every company must adapt the work environment to physiological and psychological conditions of employees.
Item 17.3.5 of the standard is clear:
“Every workstation must allow the worker to alternate between sitting and standing positions.”
This means that, even in predominantly standing roles — such as sales clerks, cashiers or receptionists — the employer is obliged to provide resting seats or ensure periodic breaks.
Failure to comply with this rule may result in violation of the physical and psychological integrity of the worker, justifying compensation for moral damages, as recognized by TRT-3 in this case.
Compensation for moral damages: a message to the business sector
The conviction serves as a warning to companies in various sectors, especially trade, industry and services, where standing work is more common.
According to the court, the employer's omission taking simple measures — such as offering ergonomic seating and allowing regular breaks — demonstrates negligence, which characterizes the duty to compensate.
The amount of compensation was not disclosed, but the sentence reinforces that moral damage exists. regardless of proof of physical illness, simply violation of comfort and dignity.
In other words: the suffering generated by continuous exhaustion and the lack of minimum rest conditions is enough to characterize moral injury.
Reflections and precedents in the Judiciary
The TRT-3's understanding adds to a series of decisions across the country that expand the recognition of ergonomics as a fundamental right in the workplace.
In recent years, regional courts have handed down similar rulings against retail chains, supermarkets and factories, for not offering adequate seating or breaks.
Himself Superior Labor Court (TST) has already consolidated jurisprudence in similar cases, stating that the strenuous work without breaks generates presumed moral damage, as it harms the Article 7, item XXII, of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the “reduction of risks inherent to work, through health, hygiene and safety standards”.
Rest is also a right
The decision of the TRT-3 It's not just about a chair — it's about respect, dignity and balance in labor relations.
The case of the worker who stayed 16 years without being able to sit shows how basic comfort is still neglected in many corporate environments.
More than just individual compensation, the judgment sends a clear message: rest is not a luxury, it is a right.
Companies that ignore this principle not only violate the law, but also put the health of their employees and their own image at risk before the Labor Court.
-
-
3 people reacted to this.