The present paper aims to analyze the performance of the Superior
Labor Court (“TST”) through its case law on workplace environment, particularly
concerning mining work, pursuant to identify the points of compatibility and / or
incompatibility with the doctrinal protection given to the workplace environment.
For this paper we used cases selected by the TST’s Jurisprudence
Coordination, in consequence of Resolution n° 96 of the Supreme Council of
the Labour Court, adopted in March 24th, 2012, that institutionalized the Safe
Work Program.
The Coordinator of Jurisprudence of the TST determined the
criteria in which the categories were separated. The chosen period comprised
from 2000 to the first quarter of 2013, and it was used as search criteria the
term "Mining Companies" with several key cases, such as: i) outsourcing of
mining activities; ii) subsidiary liability of the mining company when there are
services related to its core business; iii) implementation of strict liability in case
of accidents at the workplace, since mining is considered a risk driven activity;
iv) impossibility of “Collective Norm” to reduce the deadline established in the
art. 118 of Federal Law n° 8.213/1991; v) suppression of any breaks provided in
art. 298 of the Labor Code; vi) establishment of a proportionate system - based
on the length of exposure to outstanding risk - for the compliance with the
mandatory additional hazard payment; vii) impossibility of compensation or
extension of working hours without permission of the competent authority on
hygiene and safety; and, finally, viii) non observance of the provisions of art. 58,
§ 1 of the Labor Code or of the Ruling n° 366/TST in regards to the time spent
by the employees to move from the beginning of mine to their workplace and
vice versa.
Based on the results of such research, it was identified the most
common arguments listed in the cases, referring to the protection of the
workplace environment.
|
