Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Court Confirms Dismissal of Employee Accused of Diverting Proceeds from Scrap Sales in Hospital Construction in Nova Lima, After Proof of Undue Deposits in Personal Account and Upheld Decision by TRT-MG.
The Labor Court confirmed the dismissal for just cause of an employee accused of diverting proceeds obtained from the sale of scrap resulting from a hospital construction in Nova Lima, in the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte.
The decision, rendered by Judge Cristiano Daniel Muzzi, from the 2nd Labor Court of the municipality, recognized that the worker received amounts in his personal account without transferring the sums to the company responsible for the construction.
The total loss was estimated at R$ 59,154.00.
-
From the typewriter to the home office: how work has changed and why new generations think differently
-
Work on holidays changes in Brazilian commerce and new rule targets supermarkets, pharmacies, retailers, and companies under mandatory collective bargaining agreement.
-
When does the end of the 6×1 schedule take effect in Brazil? Discussion gains momentum in Congress and could redefine the working hours of millions of employees, altering traditional work models in various sectors.
-
NR-1 obliges companies to pay attention to mental health at work and highlights the impact of abusive targets, exhausting work hours, and harassment on leaves due to psychological disorders.
The ruling was later upheld unanimously by the Third Chamber of the Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais (TRT-MG).
Conduct and Evidence Presented
According to the records, the worker received, between 2022 and 2024, deposits related to the sale of scrap resulting from the demolition at the construction site.
The transactions occurred without authorization from the financial management.
The company presented bank statements, receipts, and records of material withdrawal.
These documents were deemed sufficient to demonstrate that the amounts were not directed to the institution’s official account.
Given the gathered evidence, the judge applied the article 482 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), which provides for dismissal for just cause in cases of acts of impropriety.
In the ruling, the judge stated: “Given the evidence collected through electronic proof, verifications, and statements, it is clear that the former employee committed an act of fraud by diverting the proceeds from scrap sales from the Nova Lima hospital construction to his personal account, making his acts subject to dismissal for just cause, for an act of impropriety.”
Employee’s Claims
The employee claimed to have followed instructions from an engineer linked to the hospital unit.
According to his account, the professional informed that the hospital did not have a CNPJ to carry out scrap sales and instructed that the operations be carried out in the worker’s name, with subsequent transfer of the amounts to her.
The defense of the former employee argued that he did not appropriate the resources and requested the reversal of the dismissal.
Internal Investigation and Inquiry
The company reported having initiated an internal inquiry to investigate the facts.
The investigation identified financial transfers made to the employee’s personal account, without formal authorization.
Payment confirmations and material withdrawal notes were presented, linking the scrap sales to the name of the former employee.
After the investigation, the employer concluded that there were sufficient elements to characterize a serious fault and applied the dismissal for just cause.
Testimonies and Contradictions
During the proceedings, the engineer mentioned in the employee’s claims testified.
According to the judge, she denied direct involvement in the transactions and stated that only a one-time sale occurred, with specific allocation of the proceeds.
However, the documents analyzed in the case indicated multiple operations, incompatible with the version of a solitary act.
For the judge, the documentary evidence confirmed the repeated practice of sales.
Basis of the Ruling
The first-degree decision highlighted that the worker was aware that the proceeds from the sale of materials should be deposited in the company’s account.
Still, according to the judge, he received the amounts in his own name.
The magistrate concluded that the conduct constituted an act of impropriety, as provided by labor legislation, which justifies immediate dismissal.
Considering the seriousness and nature of the offense, the judge deemed that prior application of lighter penalties, such as warnings or suspensions, was unnecessary.
Confirmation in TRT-MG
The case was reviewed by the Third Chamber of the Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais.
The panel unanimously upheld the ruling that recognized the validity of the just cause.
According to the ruling, the evidence demonstrated the occurrence of fraud in the transfer of funds and violation of contractual duties, making the maintenance of the employment relationship untenable.
The TRT-MG found the first-degree decision to be appropriate and rejected the reversal request made by the employee.
Value of the Loss and Banking Records
The amount of R$ 59,154.00 was determined based on the transactions tracked during the internal investigation and presented to the Court.
The case indicated that the deposits were identified through banking records and material withdrawal records, compatible with the period between 2022 and 2024.
The ruling did not indicate the existence of other amounts or operations beyond those recognized in the records.
Relevance of the Judicial Decision
The maintenance of the dismissal for just cause was based on documentary evidence of the transactions and the absence of authorization from the company for the worker to mediate the sales.
The judgment reaffirmed the understanding that the diversion of funds constitutes an act of impropriety and breaks the necessary trust for the continuity of the employment relationship.
How can companies and employees improve their control and communication mechanisms to avoid similar situations in contracts for construction and material management?
Be the first to react!