Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 2:06:09 GMT -2
By recognizing the indeterminacy of the contractual term between a goalkeeper coach and Coritiba Futebol Clube, the th Panel of the Superior Labor Court removed the club's obligation to pay the professional a compensatory fine for termination of certain contracts. The Panel reinstated the first degree sentence as it understood that the coach remained with his work schedule intact, without any interruption, thus removing the fine.
The goalkeeper coach signed a contract with Coritiba Futebol Clube in The adjustment was scheduled to last until December , However, according to the professional, the contract was tacitly extended until June , , when, then, adjusted a new period — from July , to July , It turns out that, according to the coach's report, the club rescinded, without just cause, the adjustment on September , , before this last deadline.
In view of this, the coach proposed a labor action against Austria Phone Numbers List the club requesting the receipt of the compensation fine referred to in article of the CLT due to the fact that Coritiba had terminated, before the deadline, a contract whose validity was two years. Article of the CLT establishes that, in contracts that have a stipulated term, the employer who, without just cause, dismisses the employee will be obliged to pay him, as compensation, and in half, the remuneration to which he would be entitled until the end of the term. contract.
The first-degree judge denied the coach's request because he understood that the tacit extension of the term on June , , with the implementation of a new adjustment, transformed it into a contract for an indefinite period. As a result, the professional only received typical labor funds upon termination of an indefinite contract, such as compensated advance notice and a % fine on the FGTS.
Unsatisfied, the professional appealed to the Regional Labor Court of the th Region. The TRT understood that it would also be appropriate to pay the compensation provided for in article of the CLT. According to the TRT, the contract was determined, in addition, according to the doctrine, the FGTS fine could not be offset by the compensation provided for in article of the CLT, as they meet different legal objectives.
Against this decision, Coritiba filed a Review Appeal with the TST. The rapporteur of the appeal in the th Panel, minister Márcio Eurico Vitral Amaro, concluded that, according to the factual framework recorded by the TRT ruling, the original adjustment – which was for a fixed period – was transformed into an indefinite period.
The goalkeeper coach signed a contract with Coritiba Futebol Clube in The adjustment was scheduled to last until December , However, according to the professional, the contract was tacitly extended until June , , when, then, adjusted a new period — from July , to July , It turns out that, according to the coach's report, the club rescinded, without just cause, the adjustment on September , , before this last deadline.
In view of this, the coach proposed a labor action against Austria Phone Numbers List the club requesting the receipt of the compensation fine referred to in article of the CLT due to the fact that Coritiba had terminated, before the deadline, a contract whose validity was two years. Article of the CLT establishes that, in contracts that have a stipulated term, the employer who, without just cause, dismisses the employee will be obliged to pay him, as compensation, and in half, the remuneration to which he would be entitled until the end of the term. contract.
The first-degree judge denied the coach's request because he understood that the tacit extension of the term on June , , with the implementation of a new adjustment, transformed it into a contract for an indefinite period. As a result, the professional only received typical labor funds upon termination of an indefinite contract, such as compensated advance notice and a % fine on the FGTS.
Unsatisfied, the professional appealed to the Regional Labor Court of the th Region. The TRT understood that it would also be appropriate to pay the compensation provided for in article of the CLT. According to the TRT, the contract was determined, in addition, according to the doctrine, the FGTS fine could not be offset by the compensation provided for in article of the CLT, as they meet different legal objectives.
Against this decision, Coritiba filed a Review Appeal with the TST. The rapporteur of the appeal in the th Panel, minister Márcio Eurico Vitral Amaro, concluded that, according to the factual framework recorded by the TRT ruling, the original adjustment – which was for a fixed period – was transformed into an indefinite period.