Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
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.
-
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
-
Workers Should Be Aware! March 6 Will Be The Fifth Business Day Of March And The Final Deadline For Companies To Pay Salaries According To The CLT
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.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!