Portuguese 
Spanish 
Labor Court Reaffirms: Selling Vacation Should Be a Free Decision; Company Is Penalized for Forcing Employee to Give Up Rest
The 3rd Chamber of the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region (RS) ruled that a company must pay double for the vacation of an operations manager who was forced to sell ten days of rest per year. The decision reinforces that converting one-third of vacation into monetary compensation is an exclusive choice of the worker and cannot be imposed by the employer.
The Case Judged
The case began after the employee’s family, who passed away in 2022, reported that he was pressured to sell part of his vacation. The original ruling, issued by the 2nd Labor Court of Gravataí, provided for double payment only for the ten unused days. However, TRT-4 overturned the decision and determined that payment should be extended to the full 30-day periods, recognizing that the practice adopted by the company was irregular.
According to the court, it was proven that the company’s internal policy systematically restricted the right to complete rest. A witness reported that, in several years, he requested the full 30 days of vacation, but the company granted only 20, without offering alternatives.
-
Court Upholds Just Cause Dismissal of Employee for Posting Social Media Videos During Work Hours
-
Dismissing a retired worker or one eligible for retirement constitutes ageism and creates a duty to compensate: a unanimous decision by the TRT mandates reinstatement to employment, payment of back wages, and upholds compensation of R$ 15,000 for discrimination.
-
Work less and produce more? Nobel Prize in Economics explains why shorter workdays can increase productivity
-
Unions are growing again in Brazil after more than a decade, but they face an urgent challenge to win back digital workers and maintain relevance.
Worker’s Rights
The rapporteur of the ruling, Judge Marcos Fagundes Salomão, emphasized that labor legislation is clear in stating that the compensation of one-third of vacation should be a voluntary decision of the employee. Otherwise, the imposition constitutes illegal practice and subjects the employer to double payment for the full period.
“The employer’s procedure attracts the norm of Article 9 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws and, being null, produces no effects,” wrote the judge. He added that, since the worker had already received the amounts related to vacation and compensation, only the due double payment, plus a constitutional one-third, would now be owed.
Consequences of the Decision
With the ruling, the family of the manager will receive compensation related to four periods of vacation granted irregularly. The decision serves as an important precedent, reinforcing the understanding that the compulsory sale of part of the vacation violates the fundamental right to rest and the physical and mental recovery of the worker.
In addition to restoring the amounts due, the case draws attention to business practices that disrespect the employee’s autonomy. According to the CLT, the purpose of the vacation period is to ensure the well-being and health preservation of the worker, and any imposition contrary to this principle may be considered an abuse of power.
