English 
Francês 
Alemão 
Italiano 
Japonês 
Norueguês 
Portuguese 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
2 comments 
Labor Court Decision in Minas Gerais Recognizes That Former Supervisor at Uberlândia Airport Had Her House Converted Into a Deposit Without Rent, Fixes Monthly Compensation of R$ 150, Applies Principle of Alterity, and Maintains Subsidiary Responsibility of Hiring Companies for Proven Damages Suffered Throughout the Contract.
News published on July 13, 2025, by the Conjur portal, reports that the Labor Court in Minas Gerais, through the 11th Panel of the TRT of the 3rd Region, confirmed the condemnation of a company that turned the house of a former employee into a deposit for the Uberlândia Airport, without payment of rent. The decision upholds the ruling of the 1st Labor Court of Uberlândia, in the Triângulo Mineiro region, which had already recognized the worker’s right to receive monthly compensation.
The worker, who served as a supervisor, received a large volume of mail, packages, uniforms, tools, and equipment from the company at her home, compromising the physical space of the residence and her rest. Case No. 0011039-50.2023.5.03.0043 led the Court to recognize a violation of the former employee’s well-being and the application of the principle of alterity, which prevents the transfer of economic activity costs to the employee, with the establishment of monthly compensation for the use of the property.
House Became an Extension of the Airport’s Stock
According to the ruling of the 11th Panel of the TRT of the 3rd Region, reported by Judge Marco Antônio Paulinelli Carvalho, the former supervisor at Uberlândia Airport kept a large amount of company materials at home, such as mail, packages, uniforms, documents, radios, meal cards, work tools, and other equipment.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The volume of stored items compromised a significant part of the physical space of the residence, making the private property effectively function as a deposit serving the operation of the airport.
The worker also reported that, on several occasions, she had to interrupt her rest periods to receive packages at her door.
She presented a quote for storage in a private box, priced at R$ 299 per month, to demonstrate how much it would cost the company to rent a similar space outside her home, but she did not receive any payment in the form of rent or reimbursement.
Principle of Alterity and Protection of Well-Being
When analyzing the appeal, the Labor Court highlighted that the company cannot transfer to the employee costs that arise directly from its economic activity, such as the permanent storage of materials.
This involves the application of the principle of alterity, which prevents the risks and expenses of the business from being pushed onto the worker.
According to the rapporteur, it was proven that the adopted practice compromised the residential space and the well-being of the claimant, who saw her home occupied by boxes, equipment, and professional documents.
For the judge, it is solely the employer’s responsibility to provide and cover the means necessary for service execution, and it is not legitimate to use the worker’s property as a free extension of the company’s infrastructure.
Photos and WhatsApp Conversations Consolidated the Evidence
The panel emphasized that the allegations of the former employee were reinforced by photos attached to the case and by screenshots of WhatsApp conversations, which included instructions and records regarding the receipt of materials at her home. The defendants did not present any evidence that could refute this set of evidence.
In the decision, the Court observed that the company itself recognized the exercise of the supervisor’s role and did not contest the storage images.
In light of this scenario, the worker’s version prevailed entirely, which led the Labor Court to uphold the condemnation for the improper use of the residence as a deposit.
Monthly Compensation of R$ 150 and Value Criteria
Although the plaintiff presented a budget of R$ 299 per month for renting a space similar to that used in her home, the first-degree court fixed the compensation at R$ 150 per month, a value upheld by the 11th Panel.
According to the rapporteur, this amount aligns with the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.
According to the judge, the photographs attached to the case demonstrated the existence of material storage but did not allow for precise assessment of the compromised space size or the quantity and frequency of item receipt.
Given the lack of objective data on the exact measurements and the flow of goods, the Court understood that R$ 150, excluding the profit margin present in commercial rents, constitutes fair compensation for the use of the residence.
Subsidiary Responsibility of Hiring Companies and Culpa In Vigilando
The decision also upheld the subsidiary responsibility of the two companies that contracted the services of the former supervisor at Uberlândia Airport.
This means that if the directly contracted company fails to pay the amounts owed, the hiring companies may be called to pay the recognized credits in favor of the worker.
The rapporteur stated that it was evident that the hiring companies failed to monitor and supervise the execution of the contract, allowing the employee’s residence to be used as a deposit.
The panel noted clear culpa in vigilando by the hiring companies, recognizing the link between the omission and the damages suffered, based on Articles 186, 187, and 927 of the Civil Code, which led the Labor Court to maintain full subsidiary liability.
Message of the Decision for Companies and Workers
The case reinforces the understanding that the employee’s home environment cannot be incorporated into the company’s structure without remuneration and clear limits, even in situations involving logistics and cost reduction.
The Labor Court signals that whenever there is permanent use of a worker’s home for economic activity purposes, it will be necessary to compensate for the space and respect the well-being of those providing the service. The information comes from the TRT-3 advisory.
Do you think the Labor Court should be even stricter when companies use employees’ homes as deposits or extensions of the business?
Isso é a ‘<‘. O importante é se dar bem em cima de tudo e de todos não importa o método.
Isso vai criar, por analogia, grande problema para o trabalho em casa.uita gente vai alegar que parte de sua residência foi transformada em escritório, oficina, etc. e vai exigir “aluguel” pelo uso deste espaço.