Portuguese 
A nine-day gap from achieving pre-retirement job security guaranteed by the collective agreement led to a financial manager with about fifteen years at the company receiving a dismissal notice from a broadcaster in Chapecó, and the Superior Labor Court recognized the right to compensation almost ten years later.
The distance between the dismissal and the protection provided in the collective agreement was nine days, a shorter interval than most customary notice periods in offices.
The professional held the financial management position and had been with the company for about 15 years, a long enough tenure for retirement to shift from a distant plan to a set date.
According to the Superior Labor Court, the collective agreement guaranteed employment stability for 24 months prior to the employee’s retirement.
-
City in Bahia’s Hinterland Where Cisterns Become a Weapon Against Drought, Reduce Reliance on Water Trucks, and Ensure Water Reserves for Families During Critical Periods
-
Eight 500-Ton Anchors Lowered to the Seabed with the Help of an 800-Ton Crane Support Complex Fehmarnbelt Tunnel Operations, Positioning 217-Meter Concrete Blocks to Link Denmark and Germany
-
Self-Service Grocery Store Opens in Brazil, Customers Handle Transactions with High Trust
-
Man Who Dreamed of Castles Designs and Builds His Own Four-Story Castle in Joinville, Featuring 48 Towers and 21 Rooms, Starting Construction in 1996
The dismissal notice was issued on February 9, 2017
The termination was formalized on February 9, 2017, abruptly ending a fifteen-year tenure and the countdown that had been silently counting down inside him.
From a calendar perspective, the dismissal occurred just days before the employee would enter a period during which termination without just cause would be prohibited.
The length of employment was recorded in the ruling as approximately fifteen years, a period that spanned market changes, technological advancements, and shifts in ratings for regional television.
It was this proximity of dates, rather than job performance or salary level, that the labor lawsuit would focus on in the following years.
The collective agreement marked February 18 as the start of protection
According to the ruling, the manager would enter the period of job security on February 18, 2017, exactly nine days after the date of dismissal.
This guarantee does not arise from general law but from the agreement established between the union and the companies, making it mandatory for those who signed it.
During these final 24 months, termination without just cause is prohibited, and it was precisely this restriction that the employee claimed to have lost for nine days.
The job was at a Record affiliate in Santa Catarina
The employer is TV O Estado Ltda., a Record affiliate operating in Chapecó, in western Santa Catarina, away from the spotlight of major markets.
The manager’s name was not disclosed by the court, nor were the age and salary amount, all information excluded from the official statement.
The statement reflects the crux of the dispute, namely, the date of termination, the date when job security began, and the difference between the two dates.
The Second Chamber ruled unanimously on September 9, 2026
The Second Chamber of the TST adjudicated the case on September 9, 2026, unanimously recognizing the employee’s right to compensation for the lost period of job security.
There was no disagreement among the judges, according to the information released by the court, and the panel’s decision fully followed the vote presented by the reporting judge.
According to the record of the judgment released by the Superior Labor Court, the understanding applied in this case had already been consistently reiterated by the court in similar situations.
The report was assigned to Minister Maria Helena Mallmann
The reporter for the case in the Second Panel was Minister Maria Helena Mallmann, and it was her vote that the other members of the panel followed without reservations.
The central point of the vote was not the behavior of the broadcaster itself, but the practical effect that the chosen date had on a right that was about to arise.
It’s hard not to see the logic, because when the dismissal occurs on the eve of protection, the result is the same as removing the protection, even if it is not explicitly stated.
The ruling treats dismissals on the eve as a barrier to the right
The most direct excerpt from the judgment appears in the formulation that the court uses to explain why such close dates do not go unnoticed in processes like this.
“The jurisprudence of the Superior Labor Court presumes that the dismissal of an employee within a year before achieving pre-retirement stability is a barrier to the exercise of that right.”
In practice, the one-year interval functions as a zone of scrutiny, and a dismissal within that period shifts the onus to the company to justify the coincidence.
The case originated in 2017 and still received appeals
The case is processed under the number RRAg-511-30.2017.5.12.0038, and the code itself carries the originating year, in addition to the regional court where the action began.
After the Second Panel decision, appeals were filed, keeping the discussion alive within the Superior Labor Court for some time.
While the appeal continues, the timeline that matters to the worker is still running, as the duration of the proceedings does not restore the months of employment lost.
The decision did not specify a value in reais
The court did not disclose the amount of the recognized indemnity, and the announcement also did not mention the salary the manager was receiving when he was disconnected from the broadcaster.
In such cases, the calculation usually occurs later, in the liquidation phase, when the installments for the stability period are determined based on verified remuneration.
Meanwhile, the court’s announcement merely states that the indemnity is due, without indicating how many installments contribute to the final total for the protected period.
Thus, the decision in September defines the right and not the amount, which often frustrates those who expect an immediate figure from labor news.
The protection came from the category’s negotiation, not general law
The stability discussed in the process was written in the collective agreement, an instrument negotiated by the union that becomes applicable to all contracts covered by it.
Clauses of this type appear across various categories and often go unnoticed until the day someone approaches retirement and needs to invoke them.
I must admit that the most revealing part of the case is this, as the right existed, was written and signed, yet it took nearly ten years to be recognized.
Nine days on one side, almost ten years on the other
The asymmetry of the case is entirely in this comparison, because nine days defined the loss of the right and almost ten years were needed for it to be restored.
Between February 2017 and September 2026, the case went through various instances, deadlines, and appeals, while the worker’s personal calendar continued to move forward without pause.
The ruling from the Second Chamber rectifies the legal outcome, but it does not place anyone back in the position they were in during the first week of February 2017.
Do you check if your collective agreement has a stability clause before retirement, or would you find that out only at the time?
