The case happened in an aluminum and plastic industry in Urussanga (SC): a video mocked a colleague in the bathroom, another had music with sexual content recorded during work hours, and the maximum punishment was confirmed unanimously in the second instance
The dismissal for just cause of an employee who recorded videos during work hours and posted them on social media was definitively confirmed by the Santa Catarina Labor Court, in a decision released in July 2026. According to NSC Total, in a July 2 article, the case involves an aluminum and plastic industry in Urussanga, in the south of Santa Catarina.
The outcome left no room for doubt: the 4th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 12th Region upheld the just cause unanimously, according to NSC Total, validating the harshest punishment that labor legislation allows an employer.
The two videos that cost the job
The process revolved around two posts made on the worker’s personal profile. According to TRT-12, in a statement on July 1, 2026, in the first video she filmed a colleague in the bathroom, commenting mockingly that the companion was “smoking at work.”
-
Dismissing a retired worker or one eligible for retirement constitutes ageism and creates a duty to compensate: a unanimous decision by the TRT mandates reinstatement to employment, payment of back wages, and upholds compensation of R$ 15,000 for discrimination.
-
Work less and produce more? Nobel Prize in Economics explains why shorter workdays can increase productivity
-
Unions are growing again in Brazil after more than a decade, but they face an urgent challenge to win back digital workers and maintain relevance.
-
From the typewriter to the home office: how work has changed and why new generations think differently
The other recording was of her own routine. She filmed the activity she was performing during work hours and posted the video accompanied by music with sexual content, as TRT-12 reports. When the posts came to the company’s attention, the response was dismissal for just cause, with no intermediate steps.
“Filming” or “smoking”: the worker’s defense
In the action, the employee attacked the punishment from two angles. According to the TRT-12, she claimed that the dismissal for cause was disproportionate, as she had never received warnings or suspensions throughout the contract, and that the direct escalation to the maximum punishment bypassed the usual gradation of penalties.
The other argument became the curiosity of the case. The worker argued that she did not say “smoking,” but rather “slacking,” a regional slang for “slacking off” at work, according to the TRT-12, trying to disqualify the offense to the colleague exposed in the bathroom. The semantic discussion, however, did not change the outcome of the process.
What the company claimed to apply the maximum punishment
On the other side, the industry’s defense went straight to the point that courts value most in this type of case. According to the TRT-12, the company cited the violation of known internal rules and the compromise of the trust relationship that sustains any employment contract.
The rules were not new to the employee. The Integration Manual received upon admission expressly prohibited producing and publishing content on the company’s premises without authorization, and the prohibition of cell phone use was known, as recorded by the TRT-12. In other words: there was no gray area to explore, but rather a written rule, delivered and violated twice.
This formal detail often decides cases of this nature. Companies that only “verbally inform” the digital conduct rules arrive weakened in the dispute; those that document the delivery of the rules, as the Santa Catarina industry did with the signed manual upon admission, turn the very paper into evidence. In the clash between the employee’s word and the document filed in HR, the document prevailed.
First decision: the Criciúma court denies everything
The case first went through the 3rd Labor Court of Criciúma. According to the TRT-12, Judge Vinicius Portella rejected the worker’s requests, upholding the applied punishment and also denying the compensation for moral damages she claimed.
The first-degree sentence already outlined the reasoning that the higher instance would confirm: those who film a colleague in an embarrassing situation and expose the work environment on social networks break the employer’s trust severely enough to terminate the contract immediately, without the right to compensation for unjustified dismissal.
The final word on the dismissal for cause: unanimity in the 4th Panel
In the appeal, the worker tried to reverse the situation but faced a unanimous panel. According to TRT-12, the 4th Chamber fully upheld the decision from Criciúma, in a ruling reported by Judge Nivaldo Stankiewicz.
The rapporteur focused the vote on prior knowledge of the rules. The employee was fully aware of the rules she violated, the warnings about the prohibition of cell phones, and the manual provided upon hiring, according to TRT-12, and the court also considered the negative impact of the publications among other employees of the industry.
Why a warning was not needed before
The question this case answers is of interest to every worker: does just cause always require a series of warnings and suspensions? The answer from the Santa Catarina panel was no, when the fault is serious enough.
According to TRT-12, the set of circumstances, known rules, exposure of a colleague, inappropriate content, and internal repercussions, made it unnecessary to apply warnings or suspensions before dismissal, because the breach of trust was immediate and complete. This is the consolidated understanding in labor practice: the gradation of penalties applies to minor and medium faults, not to conduct that destroys the trust in the employment relationship at once.
The message for those who record content at work
The case from Urussanga becomes a practical manual in an era where everyone carries a recording studio in their pocket. The equation is simple: the profile may be personal, but the setting was the factory, the involuntary character was a colleague, and the time was during company-paid hours.
Three precautions emerge from the decision: know the internal rules about cell phones and images, never film colleagues without consent, and remember that social media publication is a public act, not a private conversation. For companies, the precedent reinforces the value of having written and demonstrably delivered rules, like the manual that decided this case.
The cost of the lesson also deserves to be mentioned in pocket numbers: dismissal for just cause removes the worker’s right to notice, the 40% FGTS fine, the fund withdrawal, and unemployment insurance, as well as tarnishing the professional history in future selections. Two-second videos, published in the heat of the moment, can cost months of income and years of reputation, and this was exactly the math that the Santa Catarina case laid bare.
The measure of trust in employment
Ultimately, the judgment reaffirms the invisible pillar of every employment contract: mutual trust. The salary buys the employee’s time and dedication, and the company provides in return the structure and remuneration; what sustains both sides is the expectation of minimal loyalty.
When the Labor Court unanimously validates a just cause and denies moral damages, as it did here, the message goes beyond the specific case. On social media, a like is instant, but the labor consequences can be definitive, and no dance or backstage mockery is worth an employment contract. Tell us in the comments: in your company, are the rules about recording and posting from the workplace clear?
