Dissertação

Perspectivas da tutela jurisdicional dos interesses metaindividuais trabalhistas no Tocantins

The object of the present study are the demands distributed to the Labor Courts in Tocantins in 2016, with diagnostic focus of the judicial protection of metaindividual labor interests in this State. The purpose of the study was to categorize these demands, knowing what and how many are the proce...

ver descrição completa

Autor principal: Fernandes, Suzidarly Ribeiro Teixeira
Grau: Dissertação
Idioma: pt_BR
Publicado em: Universidade Federal do Tocantins 2018
Assuntos:
Acesso em linha: http://hdl.handle.net/11612/884
Resumo:
The object of the present study are the demands distributed to the Labor Courts in Tocantins in 2016, with diagnostic focus of the judicial protection of metaindividual labor interests in this State. The purpose of the study was to categorize these demands, knowing what and how many are the processes of collective jurisdiction, analyzing the quantitative of collective processes in comparison with the total number of demands, and verifying, in the Internal Labor Courts, which individual cases present collective potentiality. Qualitative-quantitative descriptive research was guided by deductive method and consisted of a case study, with a theoretical basis based on incursions of historical materialism. The investigation allowed to identify an absolute preponderance of individual processes, to the detriment of procedural collectivization. It was possible to verify a greater number of collective demands in Courts at State’s capital in comparison to judicial units located at inland, as well as, in such units, the existence of a large percentage of individual demands that, due to the similarity of objects and identity of defendants, could constituent a class action suit. It was also possible to attest to the occurrence of a phenomenon of generation of individual demands, based on collective judgments of Labor Courts at Palmas, increasing the procedural quantitative of these Courts. It was concluded that the percentage of collective demands, by itself, does not allow to assess the effectiveness of judicial protection of metaindividual labor interests, considering the expressive number of individual cases resulting from decisions rendered in collective demands, being perceived the impossibility to properly comply the goals established by CNJ for the prioritization of collective actions, in view of the absence of correct framing of collective nature demands, and it was ascertained that several actions, although they proceeded as individuals, had as their objects the protection of diffuse, collective and/or individual homogeneous interests.