Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
9 comments 
After Being Exposed in Internal Voting with Big Screen as Queen of Absences, for Supposed Absences, Employee from Pouso Alegre Secures Indirect Dismissal, Rejects Company Voluntary Dismissal Thesis and Ensures Indemnity of R$ 5 Thousand for Moral Damage in Recent Labor Justice Decision that Shocked Colleagues.
An employee from Pouso Alegre, Minas Gerais, took the Labor Court after being elected, in an internal vote, as Queen of Absences, with the result displayed on a big screen inside the company. In the lawsuit, she requested that the departure be recognized as an indirect dismissal and demanded indemnity for moral damage, alleging humiliation and vexatious exposure in front of colleagues.
When analyzing the appeal presented by the company, the Regional Labor Court confirmed that the episode constituted a serious fault of the employer, upheld the indirect dismissal and only adjusted the amount of financial compensation. The employee secured the right to typical severance payments for unfair dismissal and indemnity for moral damage, set at R$ 5 thousand after debate in the panel.
Voting with Big Screen Turns “Playful Activity” into Public Embarrassment
According to the records, the company conducted an internal vote among employees to choose the so-called Queen of Absences, based on supposed absences of the employee.
-
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 result was presented on a big screen installed in the workplace, which increased the employee’s exposure and transformed the dynamic into a public embarrassment.
In court, the company admitted that there was a vote, but claimed that the event occurred without the knowledge and formal authorization of management.
They also stated that as soon as they became aware of the facts, they took steps to correct the situation.
Even so, the employee maintained that the damage was already done, as the nickname and display on the big screen put her in a ridiculous position before colleagues and superiors.
First Instance Recognizes Serious Fault and Indirect Dismissal
In the first instance, the judge of the 1st Labor Court of Pouso Alegre understood that the conduct exceeded any limit of playfulness and recognized the indirect dismissal of the contract, based on labor legislation.
This meant, in practice, that the employee’s departure was treated as if the company had dismissed her without just cause.
In addition to the corresponding severance payments, the judge set a moral damage indemnity, understanding that the way the voting was conducted, combined with the display on the big screen, directly affected the honor and dignity of the employee.
For the magistrate, turning a supposed problem of absences into a reason for public voting among colleagues constituted a clear situation of humiliation.
Company Responsibility for Acts Committed in the Work Environment
In the judgment of the appeal, appointed judge Daniela Torres Conceição, rapporteur of the case, highlighted that the employee’s exposure as Queen of Absences on the big screen was serious fault sufficient to justify the indirect dismissal, in light of Article 483, item e, of the CLT, which deals with acts harmful to the honor and good reputation of the worker.
She also emphasized that, pursuant to Article 932 of the Civil Code, the employer is objectively liable for damages caused by its employees in the exercise of work or in relation thereto.
As the events occurred within the work environment and in the context of the employment relationship, the company’s attempt to distance itself from responsibility, citing ignorance of the voting, was not accepted by the panel.
Document Destroys Version of “Voluntary Dismissal”
The company also attempted to dismiss the indirect dismissal by claiming that the employee had voluntarily resigned.
This thesis, however, was overturned based on a document attached to the case.
According to the rapporteur, the material proves that the employee stopped showing up for work after filing the labor lawsuit, exactly as the law permits when the employee itself requests indirect dismissal in court.
This point was decisive in disputing the narrative of voluntary dismissal and maintaining the recognition that the rupture of the contract occurred due to the company’s fault, due to the humiliation caused by the voting and the exposure on the big screen.
Vexatious Exposure Secures Indemnity for Moral Damage
In addressing moral damage, the judge classified the episode as a humiliating and vexatious situation, emphasizing that the voting and the display of the image on the big screen were sufficient to harm the honor and image of the employee.
For the panel, it was not a mere isolated joke, but an internal contest that labeled the employee as Queen of Absences, tying her professional reputation to supposed absences.
This set of facts led to the maintenance of the condemnation for indemnity for moral damage, precisely to compensate for the suffering caused and to discourage similar practices in other workplaces.
The Labor Court reinforced that, when the internal culture of the company permits or tolerates this type of exposure, the responsibility falls on the employer.
From R$ 10 Thousand to R$ 5 Thousand in Indemnity for Moral Damage
In the proposed vote, the rapporteur suggested maintaining the indemnity for moral damage at R$ 10 thousand, an amount she considered compatible with the seriousness of the conduct, the repercussions of the case in the internal environment, and the financial situation of the company.
During the judgment, however, the majority of the panel agreed that R$ 5 thousand would be the more appropriate amount for the damage suffered.
Even with the reduction, the Court fully upheld the recognition of the indirect dismissal and confirmed that the voting with the big screen, the nicknames and the vexatious exposure of the employee generated an obligation to pay indemnity by the company.
And you, do you think that an employee exposed on a big screen as Queen of Absences should receive more than R$ 5 thousand or was the amount set by the Justice sufficient for the case?
Um funcionário ruim prejudica a empresa e os colegas até depois da demissão. Se ela teve tempo pra ganhar o título, certamente a empresa foi bem tolerante com ela. E ainda assim sai como vilã na história. A pessoa não tem compromisso, responsabilidade nem consideração, não honra seu trabalho, mas não pode ser exposta por isso. É a cultura do eu posso ser o que eu quiser, do jeito que eu quiser, mas você não pode me dizer que eu estou sendo isso porque me ofende!
Só comentário ****, como de costume. Gente alegando que ela seria mais exposta agora pela matéria, sendo que a matéria nem citou o nome da funcionária ou empresa. Imagina se a moda pega de fazer votação pra averiguar quem falta mais ou menos, uma idéia **** pois o controle de faltas existe justamente pra isso e deve ser tratado com todo resguardo pela chefia e setor de rh. O único motivo da votação foi causar constrangimento, certamente.
A questão não é a “premiação por faltas” nem nada disso. É o desrespeito com a pessoa. As faltas poderiam ser resolvidas com uma conversa formal e não com uma brincadeira de mal gosto.