|
|
A contract signed for the provision of space to carry out a commercial activity is not characterized as outsourcing. Therefore, there cannot be talk of subsidiary liability if the company that uses the space does not comply with its labor obligations. This understanding was adopted by the rd Panel of the Superior Labor Court to reject the appeal of a restaurant attendant located on the premises of a Social Service of Commerce (Sesc) inn in Paracatu (MG). reproduction Sesc was not considered responsible for the worker's labor claims Reproduction The worker wanted Sesc to also be considered responsible for her labor claims. However, in the understanding of the panel, which decided unanimously, there was no service provision contract, nor labor intermediation, between the restaurant Barra Café Ltda. and the entity. The first degree court considered that services had been outsourced and recognized Sesc's subsidiary responsibility. However, the Regional Labor Court of the rd Region (MG) reversed the sentence because it understood that it was a commercial lease agreement for the transfer of physical space, a situation different from outsourcing. For TRT, the object of the contract was the onerous transfer of space and equipment to operate food services for Sesc employees, guests and customers at Pousada Paracatu.
The rapporteur of the attendant's Greece Phone Number review appeal, minister Mauricio Godinho Delgado, highlighted that there is no talk of outsourcing in cases like this, which is characterized by the economato contract, a commercial relationship in which a legal entity gives space to a third party to act in its establishment, independently and in an economic activity different from that of the assignee. The situation, according to the minister, does not fit into TST Summary , which deals with outsourcing. With information from the TST pressLabor Understanding that the elements brought to the case did not demonstrate non-compliance with legal standards, the th Labor Court of Recife dismissed a public civil action filed against a construction company and an associated real estate agency for allegedly practicing excessive working hours. reproduction Magistrate considered that evidence brought by the MPT would be fragile Reproduction The Public Ministry of Labor alleged that companies regularly failed to comply with the two-hour limits for overtime and that employees' working hours records were irregular. The defendants argued that the labor reform authorized occasional overtime of more than two hours a day, and this would be necessary at certain times due to the peculiarities of the construction sector.
Judge Carolina de Oliveira Pedrosa pointed out that the documents presented initially did not prove the repeated non-compliance with labor legislation. The time reports collected referred to a small group of workers and did not cover a period longer than one month. Furthermore, witness statements corroborated the defendants' thesis. "None of the witnesses interviewed asserted the ordinary and unjustified extrapolation of the journey by more than two per day, nor the recurrence of technical obstacles to the implementation of regular registration. And the documentary evidence analyzed at first brought a subjective and temporal cut insufficient to prove the scope collective of the irregularities reported", highlighted the judge. Lawyer Marta Alves , labor partner at Galdino & Coelho Advogados who led the case, comments on the challenge faced by companies in limiting overtime: "Several medium and large institutions, mainly banks, faced public civil actions over this theme and most of them, in order not to run the risk of conviction, end up opting for a settlement. Our client, aware that in fact he was not committing any irregularity, chose to litigate in court and won."
|
|
發表於 2024-3-12 18:01:06