Post by anik4700 on Feb 28, 2024 2:21:51 GMT -5
If tomorrow it is 12% per year, the Supreme Court will apply it," he said. The search for an urgent consensus will continue this Wednesday, with the reading of Minister Raul Araújo's vote. The tendency, as he has expressed before , in the 4th Panel of the STJ, is to diverge. In the Special Court, another 12 ministers will be able to vote — the presidency only votes in the event of a tie.Driver fired after action against boss will receive double for period of absence ConJur Editor March 6, 2023, 7:49 am Labor The 3rd Panel of the Superior Labor Court sentenced JG Locação de Máquinas e Transportes Ltda, of Vilhena (RO), to pay double the period of leave of a driver who had been dismissed after filing a labor complaint against the company.
Reproduction Reproduction Driver fired after action against boss will receive double for removal For the collegiate, the dismissal was a retaliation against the regular exercise of the right to take legal action. In the lawsuit, the driver said he worked at JG from July 2014 to August 2016 and was laid off days after the company was notified of a labor action in which he claimed overtime pay. The employee then filed a second action, requesting compensation for moral damages, and then a third action, requesting reinstateme Luxembourg Phone Number nt in the position or double payment of wages during the period of leave. The basis for the request was Law 9,029/1995, which prohibits discriminatory practices at work. The company, in its defense, maintained that the dismissal was motivated by non-compliance with internal rules, such as incorrect completion of journey controls and non-delivery of tachograph discs. The Vilhena Labor Court judge recognized that the dismissal had a punitive nature, due to the fact that the driver had filed a labor complaint, and ordered the company to pay double the remuneration for the period between the dismissal and the sentence.
However, the Regional Labor Court of the 14th Region excluded the conviction, considering the worker's conduct dubious. For the TRT, although the dismissal was discriminatory and reprehensible, there would be no justification for it to request, first, compensation for moral damage and, only in the third action, reinstatement or payment in double the period. between the driver and the company made it impossible to reinstate the employment contract and would indicate that the real reason for the third action was only substitute compensation. Furthermore, according to the decision, JG's conduct would not be covered by Law 9,029/1995. In the search appeal, the driver insisted that the discriminatory attitude had been confirmed by everyone involved in the process.
Reproduction Reproduction Driver fired after action against boss will receive double for removal For the collegiate, the dismissal was a retaliation against the regular exercise of the right to take legal action. In the lawsuit, the driver said he worked at JG from July 2014 to August 2016 and was laid off days after the company was notified of a labor action in which he claimed overtime pay. The employee then filed a second action, requesting compensation for moral damages, and then a third action, requesting reinstateme Luxembourg Phone Number nt in the position or double payment of wages during the period of leave. The basis for the request was Law 9,029/1995, which prohibits discriminatory practices at work. The company, in its defense, maintained that the dismissal was motivated by non-compliance with internal rules, such as incorrect completion of journey controls and non-delivery of tachograph discs. The Vilhena Labor Court judge recognized that the dismissal had a punitive nature, due to the fact that the driver had filed a labor complaint, and ordered the company to pay double the remuneration for the period between the dismissal and the sentence.
However, the Regional Labor Court of the 14th Region excluded the conviction, considering the worker's conduct dubious. For the TRT, although the dismissal was discriminatory and reprehensible, there would be no justification for it to request, first, compensation for moral damage and, only in the third action, reinstatement or payment in double the period. between the driver and the company made it impossible to reinstate the employment contract and would indicate that the real reason for the third action was only substitute compensation. Furthermore, according to the decision, JG's conduct would not be covered by Law 9,029/1995. In the search appeal, the driver insisted that the discriminatory attitude had been confirmed by everyone involved in the process.