20/02/2013
Supermarket employee shall indemnify assaulted within the establishment Autor: Tribunal Regional do Trabalho - Minas Gerais
A worker sought the Labour Court seeking an order from the supermarket where she worked to pay punitive damages. He claimed that during a raid on the property was discussed and thrown to the ground by a thug armed robbery, which took him further R $ 137.00. Traumatized, missed work within seven days. When returned to service, was dismissed. The case was reviewed by Judge Fernando César da Fonseca, when he worked at the 6th Labour Court in Belo Horizonte. After reviewing the evidence, the magistrate gave reason to the claimant and ordered the supermarket to pay compensation of $ 4000 dollars.
The defendant admitted the assault but denied that the fiscal store had been rendered. According to the company, the amount taken by the robbers was reimbursed to the employee. At most, it maintained that all safety measures were adopted and that the assault must be understood as fortuitous event or force majeure. However, the judge did not accept these arguments sentenciante. He found that, although included in the police report that the assault had been filmed by the security cameras of the company, was not given a recording that could prove the claim of the defense.
Moreover, the witness said he heard no security at the supermarket. For the judge, there was omission of the defendant in not providing safe working conditions for employees. Because, as noted, it is common knowledge that the neighborhood where the establishment is located has high crime rates. The supermarket is medium sized and there circulating large amounts of money. And the claimant, as fiscal store, got to be more subject to the actions of offenders.
"I understand that, by its action omission in not providing adequate security to the workplace, the claimed negligence incurred," said the judge. In his way of understanding the fact harmful damage caused to the worker. Is that in the process he proved, through a certificate to appear for the office of a psychologist, complaining of mood instability, caused by the traumatic event. On the other hand, dismissed the psychological treatment offered by the company, as reported by the witness, which was considered by the magistrate at the time of fixing the amount of compensation. The supermarket appealed, but the Court upheld the decision of Mines.
