Post by account_disabled on Feb 22, 2024 0:58:27 GMT -6
The 7th Panel of the Superior Labor Court granted a forklift operator additional hazard pay for exposure to the flammable substance LPG for around ten minutes a day while changing the gas cylinder to refill the equipment. The ministers understood that this was intermittent exposure to the dangerous agent. reproduction Reproduction Operator gains hazard pay for refueling forklift The employee reported, in the complaint, that he worked in a risk area between . His witness confirmed that, in Jandira (SP), he operated gas and electric forklifts every day, in addition to being responsible for changing the gas of the equipment. The Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region considered that the average of ten minutes a day spent exchanging gas cylinders constituted an eventuality, for an extremely short time, capable of preventing the granting of the additional payment. Considering that the contact with the dangerous agent occurred for an extremely short period of time, the Regional Court concluded that he would not be entitled to additional apporteur who examined the employee's appeal, stated that, according to the facts narrated by the Regional Court, there is no doubt that the operator was exposed to risk when carrying out, on a daily basis, the replacement of cylinders. gas to refuel the forklift he was operating.
The minister noted that misfortune can occur Finland Mobile Number List in moments, and it is not necessary for the employee to be exposed to the dangerous agent for a considerable or long period of time within the journey, especially considering the high risk of explosion of LPG gas. It is, therefore, intermittent contact, with a potential risk of actual harm to the worker, he said. Unanimously, the 7th Panel followed the rapporteur’s vote. However, there were motions for clarification, which were admitted to remedy the omission and reiterate the defendant's conviction in the legal consequences of the dangerousness premium. With information from the TST advisory .The employee can file a labor claim both in the court where the contract was concluded and in the place where he carried out his activities. Thus, the 2nd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region declared the jurisdiction of the 30th Labor Court of São Paulo to judge a case filed by an employee who worked in another city.
Reproduction reproduction The man initially provided services at the Burger King store in the Carrefour hypermarket, in the Limão neighborhood, in the capital of São Paulo. After two years of service, he was relocated to the Shopping Franco da Rocha store, in the city of the same name, located in the metropolitan region of São Paulo. The case was filed in the capital, but the court in question accepted the exception of territorial incompetence proposed by the company, and thus sent the case to the 1st Labor Court of Franco da Rocha. In TRT-2, judge-rapporteur Sônia Maria Forster do Amaral recalled that the employee was protected by 3 of article 651 of the CLT. "If the employee works in several locations, he or she may file the action in any of them, without imposing procedural rules not provided for by law on the party, to their own detriment", highlighted the judge. Thus, the action was sent back to the São Paulo court. With information from the TRT-2 press office .
The minister noted that misfortune can occur Finland Mobile Number List in moments, and it is not necessary for the employee to be exposed to the dangerous agent for a considerable or long period of time within the journey, especially considering the high risk of explosion of LPG gas. It is, therefore, intermittent contact, with a potential risk of actual harm to the worker, he said. Unanimously, the 7th Panel followed the rapporteur’s vote. However, there were motions for clarification, which were admitted to remedy the omission and reiterate the defendant's conviction in the legal consequences of the dangerousness premium. With information from the TST advisory .The employee can file a labor claim both in the court where the contract was concluded and in the place where he carried out his activities. Thus, the 2nd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region declared the jurisdiction of the 30th Labor Court of São Paulo to judge a case filed by an employee who worked in another city.
Reproduction reproduction The man initially provided services at the Burger King store in the Carrefour hypermarket, in the Limão neighborhood, in the capital of São Paulo. After two years of service, he was relocated to the Shopping Franco da Rocha store, in the city of the same name, located in the metropolitan region of São Paulo. The case was filed in the capital, but the court in question accepted the exception of territorial incompetence proposed by the company, and thus sent the case to the 1st Labor Court of Franco da Rocha. In TRT-2, judge-rapporteur Sônia Maria Forster do Amaral recalled that the employee was protected by 3 of article 651 of the CLT. "If the employee works in several locations, he or she may file the action in any of them, without imposing procedural rules not provided for by law on the party, to their own detriment", highlighted the judge. Thus, the action was sent back to the São Paulo court. With information from the TRT-2 press office .