Post by xyz3700 on Feb 27, 2024 4:59:39 GMT -5
Shopping malls are responsible for the administration, sizing and availability of common spaces. Therefore, it must provide places for the custody and breastfeeding of the children of mall employees and store owners. reproduction Shopping mall must provide daycare to breastfeeding employees, TST decides This was understood by the 3rd Panel of the Superior Labor Court when condemning the company responsible for Pátio Goiânia Shopping to build and maintain daycare centers for breastfeeding for employees of the stores located there. According to the rapporteur, Minister Agra Belmonte, the rules that protect the work environment must take into account that employees who work in shopping malls use the shopping center's infrastructure. The unanimous decision welcomes an appeal from the Public Ministry of Labor.
In the public civil action, the agency asked the mall to comply with article 389 of the CLT, which provides that every company must have appropriate space for employees' children during the breastfeeding period. The rule is valid for establishments with at least 30 employees over 16 years of age. The company's defense maintained that the spaces should only be intended for direct employees, as it had no contractual relationship with store employees. He also Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List argued that the mall is not responsible for sales of products or services and only maintains a lease agreement with tenants. For the rapporteur, article 389 of the CLT cannot be interpreted literally, so that the term “establishment” refers only to the physical space in which the employer's activities take place. "Also because, when the article was written in the Decree-Law of , the reality of shopping centers did not correspond to the current notion", he stated.
That is to say: even within the scope of judicial recovery, nothing prevents the withdrawal of the appeal from being respected by the Judiciary! However, in some situations, the Bandeirante Court of Justice has moved away from this jurisprudential position.Federal judge Rogerio Favreto, from the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region, ordered the recovery of Pasep funds from former Petrobras director Jorge Zelada to be unblocked. Around R$7,000 was restricted because Zelada is responding to an action for misconduct. The former executive's defense argues that PIS and Pasep are unseizable. Favreto agreed. According to him, Pasep has a salary nature and, therefore, cannot be blocked, as required by article 4 of Complementary Law. He also argued that article 833 of the Civil Procedure Code considers salaries, allowances, salaries and remunerations to be unseizable.
In the public civil action, the agency asked the mall to comply with article 389 of the CLT, which provides that every company must have appropriate space for employees' children during the breastfeeding period. The rule is valid for establishments with at least 30 employees over 16 years of age. The company's defense maintained that the spaces should only be intended for direct employees, as it had no contractual relationship with store employees. He also Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List argued that the mall is not responsible for sales of products or services and only maintains a lease agreement with tenants. For the rapporteur, article 389 of the CLT cannot be interpreted literally, so that the term “establishment” refers only to the physical space in which the employer's activities take place. "Also because, when the article was written in the Decree-Law of , the reality of shopping centers did not correspond to the current notion", he stated.
That is to say: even within the scope of judicial recovery, nothing prevents the withdrawal of the appeal from being respected by the Judiciary! However, in some situations, the Bandeirante Court of Justice has moved away from this jurisprudential position.Federal judge Rogerio Favreto, from the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region, ordered the recovery of Pasep funds from former Petrobras director Jorge Zelada to be unblocked. Around R$7,000 was restricted because Zelada is responding to an action for misconduct. The former executive's defense argues that PIS and Pasep are unseizable. Favreto agreed. According to him, Pasep has a salary nature and, therefore, cannot be blocked, as required by article 4 of Complementary Law. He also argued that article 833 of the Civil Procedure Code considers salaries, allowances, salaries and remunerations to be unseizable.