Português 
Inglês 
Espanhol 
4 min de leitura 
0 comentários 
Ruling Reinforces That The Company Should Not Pay Compensation Or Job Security To The Employee For A Minor Cut On The Face And A Leave Of Only Three Days, Recognizing Exclusive Fault Of The Worker And Absence Of Risk In Activities.
The Regional Labor Court of the 24th Region (TRT-24) ruled that the company should not pay compensation or job security to the employee who suffered a cut on her face during the work shift. The worker, a grain classifier, claimed she was entitled to provisional job security, bonuses, and damages, but the expert concluded that the accident occurred due to her own fault and without exposure to risk.
The unanimous decision confirms that a leave of only three days and the absence of incapacity do not configure a situation that generates job security or compensation. The case, which occurred in March 2023, reignites the debate about the limits of the employer’s responsibility in accidents considered minor.
The Accident And The Start Of The Legal Dispute
According to the portal migalhas, the employee claimed she suffered a cut on her face while trying to collect samples during the unloading of a truck.
-
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
After the incident, she requested a hazard pay, compensation for moral and aesthetic damages, and provisional job security, arguing that she was dismissed in a discriminatory manner after being assaulted by her ex-partner, who was also employed by the company.
The company contested all allegations. It argued that the accident was the result of carelessness on the part of the employee, who attempted to perform the collection at an inappropriate time.
It also emphasized that it provided all necessary medical support, including the issuance of the Work Accident Communication (CAT), and that the dismissal occurred within its legal rights, without any discriminatory act.
The aggressor, according to the defense, was dismissed on the same day of the assault.
Expert Report Dismissed Risk And Hazard
During the technical analysis, the expert appointed by TRT-24 concluded that there was no habitual or permanent exposure to hazardous agents that justified the hazard pay.
The case rapporteur, Judge André Luís Moraes de Oliveira, noted in his opinion that working at heights, in isolation, does not constitute risk for the purpose of additional pay.
In the report, the expert reinforced that the employee’s activity did not present inherent danger and that the cut sustained was incidental, resulting from a procedural error, and not from an unsafe work condition.
This conclusion was decisive in dismissing the claim for compensation for moral and material damages.
Short Leave And Absence Of Incapacity Eliminated Right To Job Security
Another relevant point was the duration of the medical leave, which was only three days. The court understood that, without incapacity for work or any confirmed physical limitation, there is no right to job security as provided in Article 118 of Law 8,213/91. The judge highlighted that the injury was minor and did not generate functional restrictions.
In the first-instance ruling, fully upheld by the 1st panel, the judge noted that the episode did not have sufficient gravity to classify as an occupational disease.
The collegial body unanimously supported this understanding, reinforcing that the company should not pay compensation or job security to the employee since there was no proven employer fault.
Allegation Of Discriminatory Dismissal Was Also Rejected
The employee’s defense tried to link her dismissal to the episode of violence committed by her ex-partner within the company.
However, the rapporteur deemed that the event was unrelated to the employment contract and that the company acted correctly in dismissing the aggressor on the same day.
The court emphasized that the employer cannot be held liable for personal matters between employees, especially when there is no connection between the assault and professional activities.
Thus, the claim for compensation for discriminatory dismissal was also denied, concluding the legal dispute in favor of the company.
The case reaffirms an important understanding in Labor Justice: minor injuries and short leaves do not automatically generate job security or compensation.
For employer liability to arise, it is necessary to demonstrate inherent risk in the activities or proven failure in safety.
And you, do you think it is fair that the company should not pay compensation or job security to the employee for an accident considered minor? Or do you believe that any incident in the workplace should generate additional protection? Leave your opinion in the comments; we want to hear from those who live this in practice.
-
-
-
10 pessoas reagiram a isso.