A miner gari had guaranteed the Superior Labor Court (TST) the right to receive the additional differences for the lowest paid unhealthy activity. To the ministers of the Seventh Class, the percentage decrease to minimum degree, provided in collective instrument, has no legal support.
The decision of the college passed the examination of the appeal filed by the magazine PAH Engenharia Ltda., Who wanted to escape the sentence imposed by the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (MG).
The gari explained, the original having been hired to carry out their professional activity and doing street cleaning, which usually had contact with all kinds of urban waste, including small animals dead, hospital waste and sewage. For this health risk, the employer made up for it by paying an additional 10% instead of 40% instead, as provided in Annex 14 of the NR 15, Ordinance No. 3.214/78 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.
The 8th Labour Court in Belo Horizonte had rejected the request of the author's labor action. According to the judge, the expert report concluded that the activities of the complainant, technically, did not fit among those considered unhealthy. This decision caused the ordinary appeal that was provided by TRT-3.
To the magistrates miners, even though the evidence of the case has shown that the gari received and used, under supervision, all protective equipment (PPE) - gloves, boots, hat, sunscreen and rain gear - the activity performed of gari scanner ensures the employee the right to receive the additional unhealthiness in maximum percentage (40% calculated on the minimum wage), "because the standard does not distinguish the garbage collected by street sweepers working on trucks and processing plants that from the sweeping street ".
Regarding the reduction in the percentage of collective instrument, the Regional stressed that it could not be validated considering that the rules preserve the health of the worker "does not fall within the scope of collective bargaining."
By analyzing the resource business, the Seventh Class, unanimity, did not know the appeal of the magazine.
At trial session the rapporteur of the case, Minister Peter Paul Manus (pictured), rejected the arguments Appealable that the decision Regional violating Article 7, Paragraph XXVI of the Federal Constitution, which is made for the recognition of conventions and collective agreements work.
The Rapporteur noted that despite the prestige and value CF collective bargaining, "you can not subtract employee's right guaranteed in standard cogent." According Manus, this is not to discredit the relaxation. Is that where the provision contained in the collective rule of the subject reveals sharp loss in weaker legal relationship, the minister concluded.
(Cristina Gimenes / MB)