Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 7:46:39 GMT 1
The provision of the Code of Civil Procedure that allows the judge to declare the prescription ex officio has no subsidiary application in Labor Procedural Law. This understanding was used by the 4th Panel of the Superior Labor Court to rule out the prescription decreed by the lower court regarding the rights that an injection machine operator claimed from his former employer. reproduction The machine operator managed to have the prescription decreed by the TST annulled Reproduction the worker filed a labor complaint against Alptec do Brasil Ltda., with which he maintained an employment relationship between . Among the requests were payment of additional hazard pay, overtime and double remuneration for work on Sundays and holidays . The company did not attend the hearing at the 8th Labor Court of São Paulo and, as a result, the court declared the employer's default and considered the allegations made by the employee to be true, which were not contested by other companies listed in the action.
The basis is articleof the Constitution Finland Mobile Number List of the Republic, which determines that the worker can request credits resulting from employment relationships in court, with a statute of limitations of five years up to the limit of two years after the termination of the contract. In an ordinary appeal presented to the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (Greater São Paulo and coastal São Paulo), the operator claimed that the official pronouncement of the prescription is incompatible with the protective principles of Labor Law. However, the regional court maintained the restriction imposed in the sentence with the understanding that article 487, item II, of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure applies to this branch of Law, whereby there will be a resolution on the merits of the case when the judge decides, ex officio or upon request, on the occurrence of expiration or prescription of the right of action.
right. The vote followed unanimously. According to the minister, the TST established an understanding that the provisions paragraph 5, of CPC/73 (corresponding to article 487, item II, of CPC/15) do not apply subsidiarily to the labor process, and, therefore, , the application of the aforementioned provision is not supported by article 769 of the CLT, according to which, in omitted cases, common Procedural Law will be a subsidiary source of Labor Procedural Law, except where it is incompatible with labor guidelines. The rapporteur also highlighted the thesis established by Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes (SDI-of the TST in the sense that the provision contained in article paragraph 5, of the 1973 CPC, when providing for the ex officio decree of prescription, does not apply It is compatible with the principles that govern Labor Law, notably protection, which seeks to rebalance the disparity of forces between employee and employer.
The basis is articleof the Constitution Finland Mobile Number List of the Republic, which determines that the worker can request credits resulting from employment relationships in court, with a statute of limitations of five years up to the limit of two years after the termination of the contract. In an ordinary appeal presented to the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (Greater São Paulo and coastal São Paulo), the operator claimed that the official pronouncement of the prescription is incompatible with the protective principles of Labor Law. However, the regional court maintained the restriction imposed in the sentence with the understanding that article 487, item II, of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure applies to this branch of Law, whereby there will be a resolution on the merits of the case when the judge decides, ex officio or upon request, on the occurrence of expiration or prescription of the right of action.
right. The vote followed unanimously. According to the minister, the TST established an understanding that the provisions paragraph 5, of CPC/73 (corresponding to article 487, item II, of CPC/15) do not apply subsidiarily to the labor process, and, therefore, , the application of the aforementioned provision is not supported by article 769 of the CLT, according to which, in omitted cases, common Procedural Law will be a subsidiary source of Labor Procedural Law, except where it is incompatible with labor guidelines. The rapporteur also highlighted the thesis established by Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes (SDI-of the TST in the sense that the provision contained in article paragraph 5, of the 1973 CPC, when providing for the ex officio decree of prescription, does not apply It is compatible with the principles that govern Labor Law, notably protection, which seeks to rebalance the disparity of forces between employee and employer.