Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
The 4th Chamber of TRT-15 Confirmed the Sentence of Jaboticabal by Removing Just Cause Applied to Cleaner Due to Lack of Robust Evidence, Recognizing Dismissal Without Just Cause and Determining Payment of Termination Settlements
The 4th Chamber of the Regional Labor Court of the 15th Region upheld the decision of the 2nd Labor Court of Jaboticabal that removed just cause applied to the cleaner, dismissed on 12/26/2023, for finding no robust evidence of the accusations and recognizing dismissal without just cause.
Decision Confirms Understanding of the First Instance
The panel rejected the appeal of the elderly care institution and confirmed the ruling that removed the just cause applied to the worker, maintaining the conclusion that there was insufficient proof of the alleged misconduct.
The company argued that the employee had harassed hospitalized seniors by requesting financial assistance and left her job after being questioned by her superior, seeking to uphold the maximum penalty applied upon termination.
-
Government enacts new law: paternity leave increases from 5 to 20 days with gradual increases until 2029, and Social Security pays the paternity salary; companies no longer bear the absence cost, estimated at R$ 5.4 billion.
-
End of the 1-hour lunch break in the CLT? Current labor law maintains the break, allows for negotiated reductions, and defines rules for working hours and home office in Brazil.
-
Employee Fired After Accumulating 114 Days of Medical Leave in One Year, Labor Court Upholds Company’s Decision
-
Employee Fired While Treating Depression Wins in Court and Vale Is Required to Rehire Him Following Decision Based on the CLT and INSS Benefits
Company Claims and Accounts in the Record
According to the respondent, the cleaner, hired on 7/28/2023, had requested a Christmas basket, a slipper for her son, and a box of chocolates from the elderly, facts that were reportedly confirmed by a witness indicated by the company.
The defense also stated that they received complaints from the relatives of seniors, including a formal complaint, and claimed that the worker left the premises after being confronted, which would constitute another just cause or resignation.
Rapporteurs Justification on the Requirement for Evidence
The rapporteur of the ruling, appointed judge Ronaldo Oliveira Siandela, emphasized that just cause requires robust proof as it is the most severe penalty in Labor Law, capable of tarnishing the employee’s image.
According to the rapporteur, for the application of this measure, requirements that prevent abuses of disciplinary power must be observed, with the employer bearing the burden of proving the just cause for termination, as per Article 818, II, of the CLT.
Lack of Immediacy and Absence of Documents
For the panel, despite the claims, there was no evidence of dismissal for just cause, as no formal notice or Termination of Employment Contract was presented, nor were there attempts to contact the worker.
The decision highlighted that the lack of immediacy between the alleged misconduct and the purported dismissal characterizes the employer’s tacit forgiveness, in addition to showing weakness in the conduct of the disciplinary procedure adopted.
Evaluation of the Testimonial Evidence Presented
The ruling pointed out that the defense’s claims were limited to the testimony of a single witness from the respondent, who reported comments made by seniors and a complaint from a family, without direct evidence of the facts.
According to the panel, this evidentiary set does not meet the standard of robust and unequivocal evidence required to support the application of just cause in such labor situations labor relations.
Version Presented by the Worker
The cleaner claimed that she only wrote a Christmas letter asking the seniors for a basket, a slipper for her son, and a box of chocolates, stating that she was unaware of the prohibition and was fired for it.
For the panel, this version significantly differs from the defense thesis presented by the employer, not constituting a confession of the conduct described in the defense, as evaluated by the ruling.
Job Abandonment Is Also Removed
Regarding the allegation of job abandonment, the Court found it to be unfounded since the company did not prove that it notified the worker to return to work or justify absences, a burden that was theirs to bear.
As a result, the ruling recognizing the dismissal without just cause was upheld, condemning the respondent to pay the corresponding termination settlements and the fine provided for in Article 477, § 8, of the CLT, in case 0010920-82.2024.5.15.0120.
-
-
2 pessoas reagiram a isso.