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.
-
Retirement only at 70: men and women will have to wait until age seventy to retire in Denmark
-
Can a company require criminal background checks for hiring? Understand when the request is allowed and in which cases it can become discrimination.
-
Government submits a bill to Congress to reduce the workweek to 40 hours without a pay cut
-
Worker used company excavator to save colleagues trapped during flood in RS, was fired for just cause, but the Court reversed the punishment and ordered the company to pay R$ 20 thousand for moral damages.
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.
Be the first to react!