Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Company Will Have to Pay R$ 6 Thousand for Violating the Secretary’s Privacy After Dismissal for Just Cause Considered Disproportionate.
The dismissal for just cause of a secretary who watched movies and football games on the work computer was annulled by the Labor Court. The Regional Labor Court of the 9th Region (PR) deemed the punishment disproportionate and ordered the company to pay R$ 6 thousand for privacy violation.
The case gained prominence for exposing an important limit between employee conduct and the right to privacy. According to the Conjur portal, the ruling recognized that although the employee used the corporate computer for personal activities, there was no proven harm to the company, nor was there a repeat of the conduct.
What Motivated the Dismissal for Just Cause
According to the case, the secretary was dismissed for just cause under the accusation of watching movies and football matches during work hours.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
Furthermore, the company used private audio recordings in which she claimed to have had a “reduced work schedule” and provided certificates “because she wasn’t in the mood to work” to justify the dismissal.
These recordings were obtained without the employee’s consent and disclosed in an internal meeting, leading the court to consider that there was a violation of privacy.
The judge Valdecir Edson Fossatti, the rapporteur of the case, emphasized that the material “was not from a corporate account,” making the evidence illegitimate and invalid to support the maximum punishment.
Why the Court Considered the Punishment Disproportionate
The judges understood that just cause is the most severe penalty provided for in labor legislation and should only be applied when there is no less severe alternative.
In this case, the company did not prove recurrence nor applied previous warnings or suspensions, which characterizes lack of gradation of penalties.
Additionally, there was no demonstration of actual harm to the company’s activities.
The court assessed that the employee’s conduct, although inappropriate, did not constitute a serious breach of trust capable of justifying immediate dismissal.
Privacy Violation and Compensation
By accessing personal conversations and audios, the company exceeded the limits of employee monitoring.
The court found that the act constituted a violation of intimacy and private life, protected by the Constitution.
As a result, the company was ordered to pay R$ 6 thousand in damages for moral damages.
The panel also ordered the payment of all severance payments, including indemnified notice, proportional vacation, and 13th salary, in addition to the reinstatement of the time away for calculation of labor rights.
What the Case Reveals About the Limits of Just Cause
The decision reinforces the understanding that occasional use of corporate means for personal purposes is not enough to characterize just cause, unless there is concrete evidence of harm, recurrence, or bad faith.
Companies have the right to monitor the use of work equipment, but must respect the employee’s privacy, especially when it comes to personal communications.
Workers need to be aware that misuse of company resources can lead to warnings and sanctions, even if it does not reach the extreme of dismissal for just cause.
The case of the dismissed secretary shows that just cause requires proportionality and respect for privacy.
The control of the use of corporate equipment must be conducted transparently, and evidence obtained without consent tends to be invalidated by the courts.
Do you agree with the court’s decision? Do you believe the company erred by accessing the employee’s messages or that the dismissal was justified given the conduct?Leave your opinion in the comments; we want to hear from those who have experienced similar situations at work.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!