Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
TST Ruling Confirms Financial Institution’s Sentence to Pay R$ 10,000 for Moral Damages to Each Banker Who Worked at a Bahia Branch Without Armed Security During the Category’s Strike in 2020
According to the CONJUR portal, the 7th Panel of the Superior Labor Court (TST) upheld the sentence of a bank to pay compensation of R$ 10,000 to each banker who worked without security guards during a private security strike in Eunápolis (BA) in March 2020. The ruling recognized that the institution exposed its employees to risk by maintaining the branch’s operations without minimum safety conditions.
The ruling confirmed the understanding of the Labor Court in Bahia, which had already determined compensation for moral damages. According to the court, the absence of security guards violated the employer’s duty of protection and created an environment of vulnerability, since banking services involve the handling of funds and potential threats to the physical integrity of workers.
Exposure to Risk and Security Failure
According to the Union of Bank Workers and Financial System Workers of Southern Bahia, between March 12 and 18, 2020, there was a strike by security guards across the state.
-
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
Even so, the bank branch maintained its normal hours, forcing employees to attend without the presence of security professionals.
The union argued that the situation put bankers in constant danger, given that the transport and handling of money continued to occur.
The Court recognized that maintaining activities under these conditions violates mandatory safety regulations, outlined both in internal regulations of the financial system and in labor legislation.
Bank’s Defense and Judicial Ruling
The bank claimed that during the strike, only internal work was conducted, with no public service, and therefore, there would be no effective risk to workers.
It also questioned the legitimacy of the union to bring the action on behalf of the employees, arguing that compensation requests should have been made individually.
The first-instance court rejected the defense’s arguments and ordered the payment of R$ 10,000 per worker. The decision was upheld by the Regional Labor Court of the 5th Region (BA) and later confirmed by the TST.
The panel understood that the duty of security is inherent to banking activity and that the company did not provide evidence that justified the breach of this obligation.
Union Action and Recognized Legitimacy
When analyzing the appeal, the rapporteur Minister Cláudio Brandão highlighted that the consolidated jurisprudence of the TST waives the nominal presentation of the substituted employees when the union acts in defense of individual rights of common origin. Thus, the entity could represent the entire affected category, even without listing the names of the bankers.
The decision was unanimous. The court concluded that the collective action was legitimate and that the risk to the physical integrity of employees constitutes collective and individual moral damage, justifying the compensation.
For the ministers, the employer must adopt effective protective measures, especially in situations involving risky activities and cash handling.
Relevance of the Decision for the Category
The case reinforces the understanding that security is an undeniable obligation of financial institutions, regardless of strikes or external interruptions.
The decision also reaffirms the importance of the role of unions in the defense of collective and individual homogeneous labor rights, especially when there is a compromise to workers’ health or safety.
In addition to the amount of R$ 10,000 per employee, the decision has a pedagogical and symbolic effect, signaling that undue exposure to risk in a banking environment constitutes direct violation of human dignity and the duty of protection provided for in the Constitution.
Do you consider the bank’s sentence to pay R$ 10,000 for keeping employees on duty without security guards to be fair?
Seja o primeiro a reagir!