Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
2 min of reading 
0 comments 
A Supermarket Worker in Criciúma Filed a Labor Lawsuit After Receiving Messages and Voice Notes During His Vacation Days. He Claimed That the Rest Was Interrupted, Sought Compensation for Moral Damages, and Requested Double Payment for the Period.
The Labor Court ruled that a brief interruption of vacation, merely to answer questions from the employer, does not constitute moral damage. The decision came from the 1st Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 12th Region (TRT-SC), which unanimously judged an appeal involving a worker from Criciúma, in the south of the state, and a supermarket company.
The Case in Criciúma
During the rest period, the employee received messages and voice notes from colleagues via WhatsApp. Claiming a violation of the right to vacation, he filed a lawsuit seeking double payment for the period, as well as compensation for moral damages.
The worker argued that his peace was disrupted and requested financial compensation.
-
In Spain, a law has created paid menstrual leave funded by the state, turning debilitating cramps into legal leave and placing the country among the most advanced in Europe in terms of women’s health rights.
-
Government enacts new law: paternity leave increases from 5 to 20 days with gradual increases until 2029, and Social Security pays the paternity salary; companies no longer bear the absence cost, estimated at R$ 5.4 billion.
-
End of the 1-hour lunch break in the CLT? Current labor law maintains the break, allows for negotiated reductions, and defines rules for working hours and home office in Brazil.
-
Employee Fired After Accumulating 114 Days of Medical Leave in One Year, Labor Court Upholds Company’s Decision
In the 1st Labor Court of Criciúma, the request for double payment was accepted, although the company had already compensated the amount owed before the conviction.
Regarding moral damages, the court understood that there was a violation of the right to disconnect and set compensation at R$ 2,000.
Appeal to TRT-SC
Dissatisfied, the worker appealed to increase the compensation to R$ 10,000. The company contested, arguing that the situation did not constitute moral damage.
The reporting judge in the 1st Panel, Judge Maria de Lourdes Leiria, upheld the company’s request and overturned the damage conviction.
According to the judge, it is necessary to distinguish situations in which there is an effective violation of the worker’s rights from those that amount to mere transient inconveniences.
She emphasized that the interruptions were limited to a few minutes or hours and did not compromise the full rest period. “In this case, I believe that the interruption of nine vacation days does not have the power to represent an offense to the personal rights of the author”, she recorded in her vote.
Rationale of the Decision
The judge further emphasized that not every wrongdoing committed by the employer automatically results in moral damage.
According to her, considering any inconvenience as grounds for compensation could trivialize human feelings and weaken the constitutional protection granted to non-property rights.
Thus, the Panel maintained only the conviction regarding the double payment for the vacation period, already recognized in the first degree, and excluded the initial moral damage compensation.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!