As we have already reported, the TST (Superior Labor Court) has defined the extent of the legal aspects related to the value of labor cases, showing that the requests contained therein can be expanded by the Labor Courts, and do not limit the amounts for them to be dismissed.
The amounts mentioned in the complaint of an employment claim are merely estimates and should not limit the amount arbitrated by the judge. This is because the purpose of the legal requirement to specify the amounts of the requests is to allow the party to delimit the scope of their claim in a reasonable manner, but it should not prevent the recognition of the full rights, respecting the principles of informality, simplicity and broad access to justice. This was the understanding and decision of the TST.
In fact, on the last 19th, the Sub-section I Specialized in Individual Disputes of the Superior Labor Court (SDI-1) decided that the amounts indicated in the complaint of an employment claim are merely estimates and should not limit the amount arbitrated by the judge to the adverse judgment. For the panel, the purpose of the legal requirement to specify the amounts of requests is to allow the party to delimit the scope of their claim in a reasonable manner, but it should not prevent the recognition of the entirety of the rights, respecting the principles of informality, simplicity and broad access to justice.
It is important to emphasize that all the amounts in the judgments are adjusted at the time of payment, after the appeal phase has been concluded and the execution phase has begun. The parties, once duly notified, have a deadline to submit their calculations, in accordance with the form of adjustment stipulated in the judgment, which is also why the amounts arbitrated are not limited in the form of the request, and never represent an exact amount of the labor claim.
After the labor reform, article 840 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws now stipulates that the labor complaint must contain, among other elements, a request that is “certain, specific and indicates its value”.
In the case in question, Metalgráfica Iguaçu S.A., of Ponta Grossa (PR), had been ordered to pay several installments to an industrial operator, and the company had been appealing, claiming, on the basis of this provision, that the conviction should be limited to the amount attributed by the employee to the requests. The claim was rejected in all instances, and the Second Panel of the TST, in the review appeal, understood that the amounts contained in the complaint are mere estimates and do not limit the adverse judgment.
The company filed an appeal with Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes of the Superior Labor Court (SDI-1), case No. TST-Emb-RR 555-36.2021.5.09.0024, which is responsible for standardizing the case law of the Superior Labor Court’s panels, Metalgráfica pointed out that the Second Panel’s understanding differed from that of the Third Panel on the same subject. The rapporteur, Justice Alberto Balazeiro, recognized a valid and specific divergence in case law, a necessary requirement for examining the motion to set aside an Appellate Decision.
In his analysis of the underlying issue, the justice considered that the requirement introduced by the Labor Reform to indicate the amounts of the requests in the complaint, under penalty of dismissal of the case, cannot be examined separately. It must be interpreted taking into account the principles of informality and simplicity that guide the labor procedural logic. Therefore, what is required of those who formulate their requests is that they ensure the reasonability between the request and the amount awarded and that those requests that depend on the valuation of the evidence produced, such as non-pecuniary damage, for example, are left to the discretion of the judge to stipulate the penalty applicable to the employer.
For the rapporteur, the parties cannot be required, in order to receive in full the amounts to which they are entitled, to submit to rules for the advanced production of evidence or to agree with a specialized accounting service. According to him, this would reduce the worker’s ability to claim labor funds on their own behalf and would not comply with the constitutional principles of broad access to justice, the dignity of the human person and the social protection of labor, which are fundamental principles of Labor Justice.
