Decision reinforces limits of just cause and recognizes absence to care for a sick child as a legitimate right of the worker
Initially, a case involving dismissal for just cause drew attention after a decision from the Labor Court that benefited a worker.
Furthermore, the analysis considered that the absence occurred to care for a sick child, which was understood as justifiable.
Consequently, the penalty applied was reversed, ensuring the employee access to severance pay and possible compensation.
-
STJ confirms that child support must be proportional to the father’s actual income and not to the mother’s standard of living — the decision reinforces balance in family obligations and prevents abuses in requests for increases.
-
With the arrival of Law 11.788, internships are now recognized as professional experience.
-
The Brazilian Civil Code states that a property owner has the right to cut the roots of a neighbor’s tree that invade their land, as long as it does not harm the tree itself. The owner must notify the neighbor before taking such action.
-
Engineer is sentenced to repay R$ 148 thousand after holding public positions in three municipalities in Rondônia with incompatible schedules, and the decision is upheld by the Court of Justice.
Case involves absence for medical care of a child
First, the incident occurred when the worker urgently needed to take his three-year-old child for medical care.
Additionally, in light of the lack of support at that moment, he informed the company in advance about the situation.
Then, upon returning to work, he presented a medical certificate to justify the absence.
However, even so, the company considered the absence unjustified.
Subsequently, internal penalties were applied, and shortly after, the employee was dismissed for just cause.
In light of this, the decision was taken to court, arguing that there was only the fulfillment of family duty.
Labor legislation and child protection were decisive
On the other hand, the judicial analysis considered norms provided in Brazilian legislation.
According to the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), justified absence to accompany a child up to six years old to a medical appointment is allowed.
Moreover, the Federal Constitution of 1988 guarantees special protection to the family.
Similarly, it establishes priority to children’s rights, especially regarding health.
At the same time, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA) reinforces the duty of guardians to ensure comprehensive protection.
Thus, based on this set of norms, the Labor Court evaluated the case individually.
In this sense, urgency, medical documentation, and the worker’s employment history were considered.
Just cause is reversed due to lack of evidence of serious misconduct
Upon analyzing the case, the court understood that the penalty applied was disproportionate.
This is because, as highlighted, just cause requires robust evidence of serious misconduct, which was not proven.
Additionally, the justification presented was considered valid given the circumstances.
Thus, the dismissal was converted to dismissal without just cause.
Consequently, the severance pay due to the worker was released.
Company may be liable for moral damages in similar cases
In addition to the reversal of the dismissal, it was also noted that, in similar situations, abuse in the application of the penalty may occur.
In these cases, according to the recurring understanding of the Labor Court, the employer may be ordered to pay compensation for moral damages.
Therefore, decisions like this reinforce the need for balance between professional obligations and family rights.
In light of this, the application of just cause requires caution, especially in situations involving health and care of dependents.
Thus, to what extent are companies prepared to respect fundamental rights without exceeding legal limits?

Seja o primeiro a reagir!