16/05/2013
Transport values for common banking generates damages Autor: TRT 3ª Região - Minas Gerais
Calls Case Law depict the positioning of bodies converged judges of a court on a particular matter they judged in many cases, going to guide decisions in similar cases. The commission recently jurisprudence TRT 3rd Region edited Guidance Jurisprudencial No. 22 of Panels of Court, pacifying the understanding that the CIT, without meeting the requirements of Law No. 7.102/83, exposes the employee to risk and motivate the payment of compensation for moral damage. This, even though he has not been the victim of assault.
The legislation referred to OJ No. 22 provides that the CIT will be executed by a specialized contractor or by the financial institution, since organized and prepared for this purpose. This includes personnel expenses in approved training course vigilante authorized by the Ministry of Justice and whose security system has its assent to the approval issued by the Ministry of Justice. But many financial institutions pass over this rule, as in the case submitted to the Judge Gaston Fabiano Piazza Junior, 2nd Labor Court of Montes Claros.
The OJ No. 22 did not exist yet and the judge already understood that the transport of valuables, without due preparation, entails the responsibility of the employer for damages. That was how he decided to find that the claimant, bank manager, performed driving the institution by cash at your own risk. The fact was confirmed by a customer of the institution, heard as a witness, and even by the representative of the defendant. Demonstrated that the employee withdrew money from an agency and led to other, fueling a cash machine from a service station. The path was made his own vehicle or by taxi. The oral examination revealed that bank employees have been assaulted in this situation.
"The task at hand, the high degree of security that implies, must be performed by a specialist company or by the financial institution, since organized and prepared for this purpose, with its own staff (Law 7.102/83, Decree 89.056/83)" , reminded the judge in sentencing. He considered abusive conduct of the employer to determine that a bank employee transportasse values. For him, the situation imposes the duty to indemnify. "Given the increased risk that was submitted by the author tort bank, which had demanded the fulfillment of service different from those normally required in the exercise of its functions, the remedy sought is relevant," he concluded.
Recognizing the elements of the tort, namely, damage, fault and causation, the judge decided to order the financial institution claimed the payment of moral damages in the amount of $ 5 thousand. The parties appealed and the Court of Mines held understanding, increasing the value of the repair to R $ 40 thousand.
