Court denies request for return to in-person work made by CEF employee

kulsumkhatun488

The recommendation of face-to-face work in favor of the psychological and physical maintenance of a worker is not capable of overcoming the employer's responsibility towards third parties who may suffer the consequences of the end of the home office. This was the conclusion of the th Labor Court of Fortaleza, which dismissed the request of a Caixa Econômica Federal employee to return to in-person work as unfounded. RF Court denies employee's request to return to in-person work RF In the labor action, the employee aimed to return to in-person work, claiming he was suffering severe spinal pain and depression due to working from home, conditions that kept him away from work for certain periods in According to the judge in the case, André Esteves de Carvalho, the Constitution guarantees the inviolability of the right to life. Therefore, even if the worker assumes the risks of returning to work in person, it is up to the State to protect the right to life, and the holder of this right cannot dispose of his right.

In this scenario, the judge pointed Greece Phone Number out, the Protocol of Intent between the Public Ministry of Labor, the Federal Public Ministry and Caixa Econômica Federal, which aims to adopt measures to prevent Covid-, must be respected, as it protects the life of the worker. "The strict standard of health security due to the pandemic is fully justifiable in the current historical moment we are experiencing, following the determinations of the CLT. The employee's right is to have a safe and healthy work environment, with the aforementioned standard being the fulfillment of the employer's obligations with the help of the Public Ministry", he continued. Collective Law The judge explained in his decision that the work environment is part of the general environment; Therefore, when dealing with its internal regulations, CEF must think not only about the health of its employees, but also that of third parties. He also pointed out that the presence of the author in the internal or external work environment can create a risk of transmission to third parties.



For André de Carvalho, the recommendation of in-person work in order to maintain the psychological and physical health of the applicant is not capable of overcoming the restriction imposed on the entire community. He highlighted that returning to work is not the only solution to the author's illness, and adaptation by practicing other activities of a normal life is fully viable. "It is indisputable that we all have the right to leisure, work and several other fundamental rights, however, almost all fundamental rights have suffered restrictions, in the face of the right to life", concluded the judge.The TST has already recognized, in four judgments, that there is no employment relationship between Uber and its partners. In the most recent one, the th Panel considered that the driver "could turn the application on and off whenever he wanted" and "make himself available, at the same time, for as many travel applications as he desired". In March, the th Panel unanimously decided that the use of the application does not constitute a link as there is "wide autonomy for the driver to choose the day, time and way of working, being able to turn off the application at any time and for as long as he deems necessary, without no link to goals determined by Uber".