Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Labor Court Ruling Reinforces Legal Protection for Women’s Work, Confirms Validity of Article 386 of the CLT, and Imposes Double Payment for Non-Compliance with Biweekly Sunday Rest
The Labor Court has reiterated an important understanding regarding women’s rights in the labor market by condemning a pharmacy chain to pay double for worked Sundays for a former employee. The penalty was applied because the company failed to comply with the legal requirement of providing Sunday rest every 15 days, as stipulated by Article 386 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT). The decision was made by the Seventh Panel of the Regional Labor Court of Minas Gerais (TRT-MG) and fully upheld the ruling from the 33rd Labor Court of Belo Horizonte.
This information was released by TRT-MG, following a collegiate decision that analyzed the appeal presented by the company after being condemned in the first instance. According to the Judiciary’s understanding, the legal provision addressing biweekly Sunday rest for women remains fully valid and applicable, even after the Federal Constitution of 1988.
Company Claimed Work Hour Compensation and Questioned the Validity of the Rule
After being initially condemned, the pharmacy chain appealed arguing that it had authorization to operate on Sundays and that the work performed on those days should be considered as normal hours, without additional payment. Furthermore, it argued that the worker fulfilled variable schedules, such as 5×1, 4×1, or 3×1, according to the operational needs of the company.
-
The STJ decides that a woman who left her career for more than 30 years to take care of the house, children, and family is entitled to lifetime alimony after divorce; the decision by the 3rd Panel recognizes extreme financial vulnerability and values invisible work in marriage.
-
Two global aviation giants are convicted in Paris and will have to pay R$ 1.3 million each for the crash of the Rio-Paris flight that killed 228 people in 2009.
-
Deputies against the government join forces to maintain a 6×1 schedule, workweeks of up to 52 hours, a 10-year transition, halving the FGTS, and special rules for certain sectors.
-
New law prohibits motorcycle passengers, imposes a fine equivalent to R$ 2,100, and was created to try to curb robberies and attacks committed by criminals using motorcycles in Peru, Brazil’s neighboring country.
The defense also presented timecards, asserting that all overtime hours, including those worked on Sundays, had been duly compensated. Another point raised was the fulfillment of the general rule that ensures one Sunday off every three weeks, stipulated in broader labor laws.
Finally, the company claimed that Article 386 of the CLT had not been received by the Federal Constitution, as it deals with differentiation based on gender. However, these arguments were not accepted by the Court.
Court Reaffirms Validity of Article 386 of the CLT and the Principle of the Most Favorable Rule
When analyzing the appeal, Judge Sabrina de Faria Fróes Leão, the case reporter, emphasized that the Specialized Section I for Individual Disputes of the Superior Labor Court (TST) has already established understanding that Article 386 of the CLT remains valid. According to the TST, it represents a special protective provision for women’s work, which should prevail over generic rules.
As noted in the reporter’s vote, the application of the legal provision observes the principle of the most favorable rule for the worker and the criterion of specialty, as provided in Article 2, § 2, of the Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law (LINDB). Thus, women’s work on Sundays must be organized in a biweekly rotating schedule to favor social and family interaction, which is often compromised by the double shift faced by many women.
Based on these grounds, the judge upheld the ruling that requires the company to pay double for all worked Sundays in disagreement with the biweekly rest provided by law. The judging panel fully supported the vote. There was an attempt to file a review appeal, but it was not admitted, making the decision final.
-
-
-
7 people reacted to this.