Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 4:09:02 GMT -5
The Labor Court of Matão (SP) granted an injunction to block a general meeting called for this Monday (28) and Tuesday (29) in front of a factory. reproduction reproduction The veto responded to the company's request, which claimed that the collective bargaining process relating to the base date of May 2021 is still ongoing, with negotiations between the employers' union and the Federation of Food Industry Workers of the State of São Paulo. The industry also maintained that the call for a face-to-face meeting to decide on a strike was only 48 hours in advance, over the weekend, which violates the union's statutory rules, which provide for a minimum notice of ten days and, exceptionally , three days. Finally, the employer claimed that holding this meeting in person contravenes the measures to restrict the movement of people with a view to preventing the spread of the new coronavirus, which puts the health of those represented at risk, highlighting that it would be viable for the Union organized to carry out this act virtually. When analyzing the request, judge Amanda Barbosa pointed out that "workers in the industry are taken care of, and the availability of technical conditions must be presumed, at least for the majority of these workers, to exercise the constitutional right of meeting via virtual means, reconciling if the prerogative combines with health protection, it is equally fundamental".
The injunction was then granted so that the Finland Mobile Number List union refrains from holding an in-person meeting under penalty of a fine of R$20,000 in case of non-compliance with the obligation. The company was represented by lawyer Guilherme Gut Sá Peixoto de Castro , partner at Claudio Zalaf Advogados Associados.There is no general repercussion on issues relating to the admissibility assumptions of the Labor Court's termination action; Therefore, in this case, an extraordinary appeal is not possible. Thus, Minister Luiz Philippe Vieira de Mello Filho, of the Superior Labor Court, denied proceeding with an appeal by Banco Santander against an execution of around R$5 billion relating to semi-annual bonus installments for retirees. Disclosure Santander tried to appeal to the STF The action was filed 23 years ago and concerned a bonus relating to "profit distribution", equivalent on average to a salary. It was paid to retirees and active employees of the former Banco do Estado de São Paulo (Banespa), later incorporated by Santander. The Association of Retired Employees of Banco do Estado de São Paulo (Afabesp) pointed out that the installment was not paid between 1994 and 1997 because Banespa had reported a loss.
In 1998, payment was resumed, but reduced to 5% of salary. The category's collective agreement at the time provided for the payment of profit sharing of around one and a half salaries, but only to active employees. The retirees gained the right to the bonus installments and the action became final in 2019. Santander then filed a rescission action to annul the execution, with the argument that associations could only propose collective actions with the express authorization of all their members. In October last year, Subsection II Specialized for Individual Disputes-2 (SDI-2) determined that the execution should continue. The bank then tried to take the case to the Federal Supreme Court. But the vice-president of the TST recalled that the STF does not allow extraordinary appeals in cases with arguments of this type, as was decided in the judgment of AI 751.478. "Given that the appealed ruling deals with an issue relating to a topic whose general repercussion was denied by the Federal Supreme Court, the filing of an extraordinary appeal to re-examine these points of the decision is clearly unfeasible", indicated the rapporteur minister.
The injunction was then granted so that the Finland Mobile Number List union refrains from holding an in-person meeting under penalty of a fine of R$20,000 in case of non-compliance with the obligation. The company was represented by lawyer Guilherme Gut Sá Peixoto de Castro , partner at Claudio Zalaf Advogados Associados.There is no general repercussion on issues relating to the admissibility assumptions of the Labor Court's termination action; Therefore, in this case, an extraordinary appeal is not possible. Thus, Minister Luiz Philippe Vieira de Mello Filho, of the Superior Labor Court, denied proceeding with an appeal by Banco Santander against an execution of around R$5 billion relating to semi-annual bonus installments for retirees. Disclosure Santander tried to appeal to the STF The action was filed 23 years ago and concerned a bonus relating to "profit distribution", equivalent on average to a salary. It was paid to retirees and active employees of the former Banco do Estado de São Paulo (Banespa), later incorporated by Santander. The Association of Retired Employees of Banco do Estado de São Paulo (Afabesp) pointed out that the installment was not paid between 1994 and 1997 because Banespa had reported a loss.
In 1998, payment was resumed, but reduced to 5% of salary. The category's collective agreement at the time provided for the payment of profit sharing of around one and a half salaries, but only to active employees. The retirees gained the right to the bonus installments and the action became final in 2019. Santander then filed a rescission action to annul the execution, with the argument that associations could only propose collective actions with the express authorization of all their members. In October last year, Subsection II Specialized for Individual Disputes-2 (SDI-2) determined that the execution should continue. The bank then tried to take the case to the Federal Supreme Court. But the vice-president of the TST recalled that the STF does not allow extraordinary appeals in cases with arguments of this type, as was decided in the judgment of AI 751.478. "Given that the appealed ruling deals with an issue relating to a topic whose general repercussion was denied by the Federal Supreme Court, the filing of an extraordinary appeal to re-examine these points of the decision is clearly unfeasible", indicated the rapporteur minister.
