TRT-3 Invalidates Just Cause of Security Guard for Refusing to Record Break and Confirms Compensation for Moral Damages.
The 10th panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (TRT-3) annulled the just cause applied to a security guard who refused to record a break in the timecard that he did not take.
The court found that the worker’s conduct was not serious enough to justify the maximum penalty under the CLT.
The case drew attention because the guard also reported suffering humiliation after the disclosure of his punishment in the company’s WhatsApp group, exposing his name and situation to colleagues.
-
From the typewriter to the home office: how work has changed and why new generations think differently
-
Work on holidays changes in Brazilian commerce and new rule targets supermarkets, pharmacies, retailers, and companies under mandatory collective bargaining agreement.
-
When does the end of the 6×1 schedule take effect in Brazil? Discussion gains momentum in Congress and could redefine the working hours of millions of employees, altering traditional work models in various sectors.
-
NR-1 obliges companies to pay attention to mental health at work and highlights the impact of abusive targets, exhausting work hours, and harassment on leaves due to psychological disorders.
Just Cause Challenged by TRT-3
The company alleged that the dismissal was based on neglect, according to article 482, “e,” of the CLT, citing non-compliance with internal rules and offensive words to the supervisor.
However, the first instance had already recognized the nullity of the just cause, determining the payment of severance pay for an unjustified dismissal and R$ 5,000 for moral damages.
Judge Ricardo Antônio Mohallem, reporting the case, highlighted:
“The worker’s refusal to register the break was legitimate, as he neither took the rest nor was compensated for it. Even if that was not exactly the reality, I understand that the infraction is not serious enough to warrant the maximum penalty, and it is necessary to observe proportionality, as no prior warnings were submitted before the disciplinary suspension, a punishment that also does not seem reasonable and proportional to the infraction.”
Moral Damage Confirmed
TRT-3 reinforced that there was no evidence of offense to the supervisor. Regarding moral damages, the panel considered the disclosure of the punishment as “unnecessary exposure of the claimant, resulting in offense to the dignity, honor, and image of the employee.”
The compensation for moral damages was upheld by the court, recognizing the embarrassment caused.
Impacts on Timekeeping and Breaks
The decision from TRT-3 highlights that professionals such as security guards cannot be penalized for refusing to record breaks that they do not take.
Companies must apply just cause in a proportional manner, considering prior warnings and avoiding unnecessary punishments.
Labor law specialists emphasize that non-compliance with internal rules, when unproven, does not justify the maximum penalty.
Furthermore, the disclosure of punishments in groups or publicly can lead to moral damage lawsuits.
Lessons for Companies and Workers
The case reinforces the importance of clear policies for timekeeping and respect for intrajourney breaks. For workers, it underscores that the refusal to record unused periods is a legitimate right, and undue exposure can lead to compensation.
Case No. 0010931-40.2024.5.03.0090 establishes an important precedent for companies and security professionals, reminding that just cause must be applied with caution and proportionality.

Be the first to react!