A worker in approved public tender organized by the municipality of São Lourenço (MG) could not be compensated for having been nominated more than one year after the approval of the competition and judicial enforcement. She wanted to receive the salary amounts for the period in which waited the appointment, but the First Chamber of the Superior Labor Court (TST) at its meeting on 18 December 2012, dismissed the interlocutory appeal of the worker, as judged presented with paradigms served to not allow the knowledge of the resource.
The worker was approved in second place in a competition held to fill vacancies in the office of psycho in San Lorenzo. The entrance exam held a fit, but the management department staff did not recommend his appointment, concluded that because she did not meet requirements for exercising the office.
Bitter, the concursada filed an injunction and, over a year after passing the competition, could be named by court order. Why do believe entitled to indemnification for non-receipt of wages for the period they waited for the appointment, and filed in court again pleaded the payment of profits, but the sentence dismissed the application.
By analyzing the working of ordinary appeal, the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (MG) gave him no reason and upheld the decision of the first degree. To the judges is "improper compensation for the time that the appointment is awaited, although this has been due to a court decision, because only from the possession and exercise in public employment for which he was nominated is that the server becomes entitled perception corresponding salary and benefits. "
The Regional also denied the ascent of a magazine feature that concursada wanted to bring in TST, which led to the filing of an interlocutory appeal. She argued that the lack of service delivery resulted from the exclusive fault of the municipality, which is not named her, she even fulfilling the necessary requirements and verified the existence of vacant positions for appointment. To enable knowledge resource, pointed transgression of Article 5th, section X of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from violation of privacy, private life, honor and image of persons as well as presented judged with different conclusions from the attack.
The rapporteur of the appeal in the First Class, Minister Lelio Bentes Correa (pictured), explained that the provisions of Article 5, paragraph X of the Constitution holds no relevance to the discussion in question as "compensation for loss of a chance not confused with compensation arising from violation of privacy, private life, honor and image, "he concluded.
The minister also concluded that three of the trial were presented by working unserviceable because coming from organs not listed in CLT, and one of them proved to be nonspecific, because the subject is discussed in several of the cars. Thus, the minister considered infeasible processing feature magazine.
The decision was unanimous.
Loss of profits and loss of a chance
Compensation for loss of earnings refers to compensation for actual damages suffered by someone, because of guilt, omission, negligence, willful misconduct or malpractice of another.
Compensation for loss of a chance refers to the compensation due for the loss of an opportunity with great potential to turn out to accomplish, caused by an illicit intervention of others. Thus, when the practice of tort was already gaugeable a chance, something that effectively lost upon illicit, not something that is left to profit.
Procedure: AIRR - 1184-71.2010.5.03.0053
(Letícia Tunholi / MB)