Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
The 7 Hypotheses of Article 483 of the CLT Show When Salary Delay, Excessive Rigors, Assault, or Production Cut Allow Indirect Dismissal
Article 483 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) establishes the situations in which the employee may consider the contract terminated and seek compensation, if the company commits a serious violation.
This provision is essential to protect the worker from abuses, as it guarantees the same rights as a dismissal without just cause.
Many are unaware of these details, and thus they end up suffering in silence, believing they have no alternatives. Next, we will go through all the hypotheses provided by law, explaining simply how they work.
-
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
Structure of Article 483 of the CLT
Article 483 has a main text, referred to as the “head,” and seven sections ranging from letter A to G. Additionally, there are three complementary paragraphs.
In essence, the rule is clear: the worker can request indirect dismissal whenever the employer commits one of the acts listed in the article.
These hypotheses represent the situations that the law regards as “serious violations” committed by the company.
Services Required Outside the Contract
a) are required services beyond their strengths, prohibited by law, contrary to good morals, or unrelated to the contract;
The first hypothesis appears in Section A. In it, the CLT considers a serious violation when the company:
- requires services beyond the strengths of the worker;
- imposes tasks prohibited by law;
- forces the employee to perform activities contrary to good morals;
- or requires functions unrelated to the contract, such as in cases of accumulation or deviation of function.
This means that if an employee hired for an administrative role is forced to carry excessive weight or perform tasks incompatible with the contract, the situation may justify an indirect dismissal.
Another example is when the company requires illegal conduct, such as deceiving customers about a product.
There are also more subjective cases, such as forcing the employee to adopt immoral practices to achieve sales. In all these scenarios, the law considers that there has been a serious violation by the employer.
Excessive Rigor and Harassment
b) is treated by the employer or by their hierarchical superiors with excessive rigor;
Section B addresses so-called excessive rigor. This occurs when the employee is treated too harshly, with disproportionate or discriminatory demands compared to colleagues.
In practice, many cases of moral harassment fall under this provision. It is a situation that requires careful analysis, as the law does not define exactly what excessive rigor is. It is up to the judge to assess whether the conduct has exceeded the bounds of normality.
Manifest Danger at Work
c) is in manifest danger of considerable harm;
Section C guarantees the right to indirect dismissal when the employee is in a situation of manifest danger of considerable harm.
Normal risk of the function is not enough. It is necessary for the danger to be abnormal or aggravated by a lack of adequate conditions.
For example, working at height is part of some professions. However, if the company provides old or defective safety equipment, putting the worker’s life at risk, this constitutes a serious violation.
Failure to Comply with Contractual Obligations
d) the employer does not fulfill the obligations of the contract;
Section D is the most common and serves as the basis for most requests for indirect dismissal.
It applies when the employer does not fulfill their contractual obligations, such as:
- failing to sign the work card;
- not collecting the FGTS;
- frequently delaying salaries;
- not paying overtime;
- or preventing breaks during legal intervals.
In summary, any failure to comply with an essential obligation of the contract may justify indirect dismissal.
Offense to Honor and Physical Assault
The following hypotheses appear in sections E and F.
Section E addresses situations in which the employer, a hierarchical superior, or even coworkers commit acts that harm the honor or good reputation of the employee or their family. Insult, slander, and defamation fit into this point.
Section F is even more serious, as it involves physical offense. Assaults against the worker or their relatives, by bosses or colleagues, constitute an immediate serious violation.
Reduction of Work and Salary Decrease
g) the employer reduces your work, whether by piece or task, in a way that significantly affects the importance of the salaries.
Finally, Section G addresses the hypothesis in which the company unjustifiably reduces work by piece or task, resulting in a significant drop in the employee’s salary.
This provision primarily applies to those paid by production. If the company intentionally reduces the number of pieces or tasks delivered, to pay less to the worker, the law guarantees the right to indirect dismissal.
To Stay or Not to Stay at Work
A common question for those requesting indirect dismissal is whether they need to remain employed during the process.
§ 3 of Article 483 resolves the issue: in the cases provided by letters D and G, the worker can request dismissal whether or not remaining in the service until the final decision. This means that the law recognizes the gravity of these hypotheses and protects the employee in the face of the impasse.
Effects of Indirect Dismissal
When the Justice recognizes the indirect dismissal, the worker receives the same rights as a dismissal without just cause. This includes:
- withdrawal of FGTS with a 40% penalty;
- prior notice;
- proportional vacation + 1/3;
- proportional 13th salary;
- unemployment insurance (if requirements are met).
Therefore, it is an essential mechanism to prevent the employee from suffering losses due to abusive conduct by the employer.
A Little-Known Right
Although it has been provided for decades in the CLT, indirect dismissal is still little known among workers. Many believe that, to leave the company, the only options are voluntary resignation or waiting for dismissal by the employer.
Article 483 proves otherwise: if the company fails seriously, the employee can terminate the contract and seek in court the due compensation. Knowing each of the hypotheses is the first step to not giving up rights guaranteed by law.
-
Uma pessoa reagiu a isso.