Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
11 comments 
Unanimous Decision from TRT-MG Maintained Ruling from the 1st Labor Court of Uberaba and Guaranteed the Worker Notice, Proportional 13th Salary, Vacation with Additional 1/3, and 40% Fine on the FGTS
The Labor Court annulled the dismissal for just cause applied to a doorman accused of having taken, without authorization, a Halls candy from the candy store in a convenience store located within the hospital where he worked. The decision was made by the Eighth Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (TRT-MG), which deemed the punishment disproportionate given the circumstances of the case. The ruling was unanimous and fully confirmed the sentence issued by the 1st Labor Court of Uberaba.
The information was disclosed by the Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais, according to records of the case that has been definitively archived. According to the documents, the worker reported that, during his last shift, around 11:50 PM, he responded to a request from a receptionist to transport a candy cart from the reception to the convenience store in the hospital. At that moment, he took the opportunity to grab a Halls candy, informing his colleague that he would pay for it during the next shift, since the store was closed at that time.
However, the next day, the doorman was called by the supervisor and was surprised with the dismissal for just cause, without having the opportunity to present a prior defense. The company’s decision was immediate and based on footage from the security system that, according to the employer, would show the worker removing the item from the establishment.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
Company Claimed Breach of Trust Based on Article 482 of CLT
The service company responsible for the hiring claimed that the employee had committed misconduct by taking the product from the convenience store. To justify the dismissal for just cause, it invoked Article 482, item “e,” of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), which deals with breach of trust and conduct considered serious in the professional environment.
However, upon reviewing the appeal, Judge José Nilton Ferreira Pandelot, the rapporteur of the case, understood that the conduct attributed to the worker did not justify the motivated termination of the employment contract. For the judge, it was necessary to observe the factual context presented in the case, as well as the proportionality of the penalty applied.
Moreover, the rapporteur highlighted that the doorman did not perform a property surveillance function. Therefore, there was no specific assignment linked to the protection of the store’s goods. This detail was considered relevant to assess the alleged breach of trust pointed out by the employer.
Witness Confirmed Habit of Paying for the Candy on the Next Shift
Another decisive point for the ruling was the testimony of a witness who stated that it was common among employees to take candies and settle the payment on the next shift. According to the account, this practice was also adopted by other doormen, reinforcing the argument that it was not an isolated or exceptional conduct.
Furthermore, according to the witness, there had never been any prior complaints against the worker, who was known as an honest person. Colleagues were even surprised by the dismissal for just cause, not understanding the severity of the penalty applied.
Additionally, no records of prior warnings or formal guidelines explicitly prohibiting the practice were presented. The plaintiff even stated that he had acted in the same manner previously, without facing any punishments. For the rapporteur, this history raises reasonable doubt about whether the conduct was actually disapproved by the company or if there was tacit tolerance in the work environment.
In light of this scenario, the collegial body concluded that the just cause was applied in a disproportionate manner. Thus, it maintained the company’s obligation to pay the severance payments typical of dismissal without just cause. The worker will be entitled to notice, proportional 13th salary, proportional vacation plus 1/3, and a 40% fine on the FGTS balance.
Finally, the decision was unanimous and is no longer subject to appeal. The case has already been definitively archived, consolidating the understanding that maximum punishment cannot be applied automatically without a detailed analysis of the circumstances and the proportionality of the measure.
And you, what do you think of the Labor Court’s decision: was the annulment of the just cause correct given the circumstances or did the company have a reason to apply the maximum penalty?
Decisão corretíssima!
Calma que o STF vai mandar prender o porteiro
Roubo e roubo não importa o valor. 🤷🏾♂️
Nenhuma empresa vai demitir alguém por causa de uma bala, tem mais coisa nessa história pode ter certeza.
História contada na visão só de um lado.
Infelizmente essa coisas só iram piorar, cada dia mais e mais direitos, mas as pessoas não entendem que cada dia o dinheiro delas vale menos a de nada adianta ter um monte de direitos se não tiver emprego.
Foi um processo judicial seu filho da ****, com direito a contraditório e ampla defesa. A empresa tem advogados. Não tem isso de ouvir um lado só, ****.