|
|
The case law of the Superior Labor Court says that hazard pay is due when the individual storage capacity of a fuel tank at the workplace exceeds liters. reproductionThus, the rd Panel ordered Banco do Brasil to pay the additional amount to an employee who works in a building with two fuel tanks underground. In the labor complaint, the bank employee requested payment of the additional payment, equivalent to % of the salary (article of the CLT ), with the argument that, in the Banco do Brasil Headquarters III building, in Brasília, where he works, there are two oil tanks diesel, with , liters of capacity each, unearthed underground. The lower court rejected the request, and the Regional Labor Court of the th Region (DF TO) upheld the sentence. According to the TRT, the triggering event for the hazard pay is the amount of fuel above the legal limit, which, according to Regulatory Norm (NR) of the extinct Ministry of Labor (current Special Secretariat for Social Security and Labor), would be thousand liters for each tank. Vertical building The rapporteur of the bank employee's review appeal at the TST, minister Mauricio Godinho Delgado, explained that the TST's understanding is that NR- expressly establishes the limits of flammable liquid stored in the workplace, which give the right to payment hazard pay, even if it is in a closed space. "
Therefore, the existence of Greece Phone Number flammable liquid packed in drums or drums made of steel, aluminum, other metals or plastic, with a capacity between and liters, does not result in entitlement to the installment." Regarding NR-, the minister added that, according to the standard, tanks for storing flammable liquids can only be installed inside buildings in the form of buried tanks, unlike what occurs in the building in question. The decision was unanimous. With information from the press office of the Superior Labor Court.Why doesn't legislation evolve, for example, so that disputes can be resolved directly by interested parties duly assisted by lawyers? How many millions in public budget would be saved? Why do lawyers and judges themselves seem to not want extrajudicial solutions to conflicts? The politically correct answer would be the danger to the preservation of labor rights, but we already know that there is something beyond this narrative. And in this desire to maintain their own rights, the entire class involved in the labor litigation market tends to always defend that the old formula for labor regulation remains the general rule, forcing the application of a model for different realities, as in the case of workers on digital platforms.
The example of the Uber app drivers whose agreements were not approved, to make it possible to condemn the company with the recognition of the employment relationship, is significant within this logic: everyone's survival depends on the advancement of this "social achievement". If the new way of working, which seems to be the trend for the future, does not fit into the good old Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), the destruction of the system will be announced. Likewise, accepting new, more flexible labor legislation with minimum rights suited to new ways of working constitutes a danger to everything that has been established. It is even better that the issue is not resolved by the legislator, as in the meantime a new niche with the potential for millions of actions is emerging, that of the request for an employment relationship through legal action. Everyone benefits from this possibility and Justice plays its role. It seems that we will have to change a lot if we want a new logic for the labor area, one that no longer produces a cost for companies, which in fact ends up supporting not only workers through fair compensation, but also all professionals linked to the labor industry. litigation. While this does not happen, at least there is a way for the national business community to reduce the impact of the labor issue on economic development: investing in the purchase of labor credit.
|
|
發表於 2024-3-12 16:44:08