The 1st Labor Court of Presidente Prudente has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a meatpacking plant from cutting or reducing the monthly bonuses of employees who present medical certificates, a practice that forced workers to come in sick to avoid losing around R$ 400 at the end of the month.
The decision responds to a request from the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT) and was announced on September 15 by the prosecution office in Campinas. The company involved is Naturafrig Alimentos.
If the company fails to comply, it will incur a fine of R$ 5,000 per non-compliance item and an additional R$ 1,000 for each affected employee.
The inquiry began with a complaint claiming that workers were arriving at work in pain, sick, and even with injured hands, and the reason was clear: a submitted medical certificate would eliminate their bonus for the entire month.
-
Golden Retriever in San Diego Home Intrudes with Intruder, Becomes Viral for Attempting Play as Police Surround House
-
Group Bets R$ 1 Million on Over 60,000 Tickets in Lotofácil da Independência, Excludes Only One Number, and Although Failing to Hit All 15 Numbers, Ends Up with Nearly 8,000 Winning Tickets
-
64-Year-Old Worker, Just Eight Months from Retirement, Sees Age Discrimination Compensation Spike from R$5,000 to R$50,000 by the Eleventh Labor Court of Minas Gerais
-
10-Year-Old Excels in Mathematics Exam for State University, But Faces Setbacks Due to High School Completion Requirement
R$ 400 determined whether workers visited a doctor
The average amount at stake was about R$ 400 per month, according to the MPT.
In a factory worker’s salary, this isn’t merely a bonus; it’s essential for grocery shopping in the second half of the month, paying the motorcycle installment, or buying school supplies for their children. Missing work to see a doctor effectively cost workers this significant portion of their income.
According to the internal regulations adopted by the plant, employees would lose the entire bonus amount if they submitted a common medical certificate.
They would lose a quarter of the total if they submitted more than one medical declaration in the same month.
Payslips revealed that the rules were unclear
Upon reviewing the payslips, the Public Ministry found another issue: the company did not use a transparent criterion for paying the bonuses.
The values varied without explanation among individuals holding the same position, as noted by the prosecution’s report.
In other words, in addition to punishing those who fell ill, the bonus varied for reasons that the workers themselves could not understand just by looking at their payslips.
The court found no link between bonuses and production
This was the technical point that invalidated the defense’s argument. The bonus was defined solely by the position held.
It did not depend on production targets, line speed, or individual performance indicators, as recorded in the ruling.
Thus, there was no reason to cut the earnings of someone who needed to take time off for health reasons, as their legal absence did not affect the basis for the payment.
The judge identified the phenomenon: presenteeism
The presiding judge, Nelma Pedrosa Godoy Sant’Anna Ferreira, used the term in her ruling.
“Such criteria undoubtedly encourage ‘presenteeism’ (a term used to describe the phenomenon of being present at the workplace without effective production or engagement due to various factors, including health conditions),” she wrote.
She added that it was urgent to prevent sick workers, with medical recommendations for leave, from continuing to work out of fear of not receiving their production bonus.
The magistrate also noted that this practice negatively impacts the company, as sick employees are less productive and may end up taking more time off due to complications from their illness.
The company rejected the agreement before the case went to court
The Public Ministry initially sought an administrative route, proposing a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC).
Since the company refused to enter into the TAC, the case was taken to the Labor Court, where it became the action that resulted in the current injunction.
The procedure is standard in this type of investigation and is usually faster when the company signs. Here, it did not sign.
The decision is temporary and can still be challenged
A temporary injunction is a provisional decision made before the final ruling when the court deems there is urgency.
According to the MPT, it can be challenged at the Regional Labor Court of the 15th Region, which covers the interior of São Paulo.
In the meantime, the ban stands: the cuts are prohibited and the fine is imposed.
Why attendance bonuses can be a minefield
Attendance bonus programs are common in the food industry, where absenteeism disrupts scheduling and production lines.
The problem arises when the design of the bonus turns a legal right, such as a medical consultation with a certificate, into a financial loss for those who exercise that right.
Moreover, absences legally justified cannot be treated as unexcused, and it is precisely this boundary that the injunction reaffirms.
The case number and what comes next
The case is registered under the number 0011667-52.2026.5.15.0026, as reported by the Public Ministry of Labor.
The note does not specify how many employees were affected by the internal rule at the facility in Presidente Prudente.
It also does not detail how long the regulation had been in effect at the factory.
What is known from the note is sufficient to understand the setup: the amount was determined by the position, appeared on the payslip as a bonus, and disappeared when the worker provided a doctor’s note.
In the processing plant, this type of rule affects a workforce that stands, works in cold conditions, performs repetitive motions, and wields knives—exactly those who need consultations and time off the most.
Repetitive strain injuries, back pain, and shoulder problems are common complaints in the industry, and none improve for those who postpone clinic visits to avoid losing bonuses.
As long as the injunction is in effect, the company cannot enforce the rule, and any deduction present on the next payslip is subject to fines.
In practice, the effect appears quickly: all it takes is for one worker to retain the payslip from the following month showing the full bonus to have proof that the decision was honored, or conversely.
The doctor’s note that cost a month’s wage
Ultimately, the story is this: a bonus rule that forced workers to choose between caring for an injured hand and receiving four hundred reais.
It’s easy to see why so many chose the latter option and continued on the line.
And you, what do you think: is a bonus that disappears with a doctor’s note a productivity incentive or a disguised punishment?
