Audiência Trabalhista 06 - 0025231-58.2016.5.24.0007 - Instrução

Summary

The transcript captures a court hearing discussing a labor dispute involving an employee’s termination and the end of contracts between multiple security firms and the Caixa Econômica Federal. The discussion focuses on the legality of representation by a former employee, the transition of security contracts, and whether proper procedures were followed for the employee’s transfer or termination. Witness testimony clarifies that the employee chose to continue working for a new firm after the original employer lost the contract, highlighting issues with employment continuity and the assignment of new positions.

Takeaways

• 📜 The focus is on a labor dispute involving the company Forte Sul and Caixa Econômica Federal, where the termination of a contract and employment is at issue.
• 🤝 The claimant asserts they were dismissed without proper cause, and the defense lacks proof of dismissal.
• 📝 The witness confirms that their employment ended when the contract between Forte Sul and Caixa Econômica Federal was terminated.
• 👨‍⚖️ The company Forte Sul no longer has employees, and the former representative confirmed they are no longer working for the company.
• ⚖️ The claimant’s lawyer requested that the court recognize a confession regarding the facts due to the lack of testimony from the preposto (company representative).
• 📅 The worker was employed from 2009 to 2014, primarily working as a security guard for Caixa Econômica and the Banco do Brasil.
• 🏢 After Forte Sul lost the contract with Caixa Econômica, the claimant opted to continue working under Hyundai Security, which took over the contract.
• 💼 The company Forte Sul did not offer any other positions to the claimant after losing the contract, and only presented vacation paperwork.
• 📑 The claimant was aware that Forte Sul had other contracts with different companies like Banco do Brasil and Multi Casa, but none were offered to him.
• 📅 The session concluded with the instruction of setting the final decision for May 30.

Q & A

What was the main issue discussed in the transcript?

The main issue discussed was the termination of the claimant's employment with Fort Sul after a contract with Caixa Econômica ended and the subsequent transition to a new company, Hyundai, which took over the services.

Did the claimant have evidence to support the claim of wrongful dismissal?

No, the claimant acknowledged that they did not have concrete evidence of wrongful dismissal, only a testimony confirming that the dismissal occurred.

Why was the preposition of the first respondent questioned?

The preposition was questioned because the representative of the first respondent was no longer employed by the company, which raised concerns about their legal standing to represent the company.

What was the court's decision regarding the representation of the first respondent?

The court decided that the first respondent was correctly represented, despite the representative not being a current employee, as the company had ceased operations and authorized representation through a letter.

Where did the claimant primarily work while employed with Fort Sul?

The claimant primarily worked as a security guard for Caixa Econômica Federal, providing services at various bank branches, including Afonso Pena and Barão agencies.

Did the claimant work for other companies besides Caixa Econômica?

Yes, the claimant also worked at Banco do Brasil for about a year and at the Green Park condominium during the night shift for nearly a year between 2010 and 2011.

What happened after Fort Sul lost its contract with Caixa Econômica?

After Fort Sul lost the contract, Hyundai Security took over the services at Caixa Econômica, and the claimant was given the option to continue working for Hyundai at the same locations.

Was the claimant offered other positions when the contract with Caixa Econômica ended?

No, the claimant stated that they were not offered any other positions by Fort Sul, and the company seemed to be in the process of shutting down.

Did Fort Sul offer any severance or compensation to the claimant after losing the contract?

The only action taken by Fort Sul was to present the claimant with a document regarding vacation leave, but it is unclear whether the claimant signed it.

Was there any indication that the claimant was aware of other contracts held by Fort Sul?

Yes, the claimant was aware that Fort Sul had contracts with other companies like Banco do Brasil, Multicasa, and the Village Park condominium, though these contracts were lost shortly after.