With the deadline for submitting transparency and equal pay reports extended to March 8 this year, companies are already moving to defend their right not to submit the data.<\/p>\n
Drogaria Pacheco filed a lawsuit before the 26th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro – RJ, under No. 5011649-62.2024.4.02.5101\/RJ, seeking interlocutory relief so that it would not be obliged to provide the information and prevent the imposition of a fine for failure to do so.<\/p>\n
In this regard, after successfully obtaining interlocutory relief, a path is opened up for companies that do not intend to submit the report, nor disclose information on their social media.<\/p>\n
However, it is important to mention that this is the opinion of a state court, so we are not talking about an understanding that has been settled by the Judiciary Branch, which is why companies wishing to have their rights relieved must file a lawsuit.<\/p>\n
The court discussed the claims made by the plaintiff, as well as the legislation mentioned, and found that the necessary requirements for granting interlocutory relief had been met. When granting the measure, the judge argued that the legislator’s intention was “to guarantee equal pay for men and women, and there is no reason why, at least in principle, such monitoring could not take place through much more precise databases, such as E-Social, FGTS, CNIS and others, protected by due confidentiality”.<\/p>\n
The understanding is that companies are not obliged to provide data, even on labor policies that are not compulsory, including on social networks, by means of a decree and administrative rule, without the proper legal support, and without proving that such data is fundamental to achieving the equal pay that the legislation aims to guarantee.<\/p>\n
The requirement to publish the data, it seems, is in stark contrast to the supposed guarantee of anonymity and secrecy provided for in Law No. 13,709\/2018 – the General Data Protection Law, even if the employees’ data is preserved, the company’s data will be disclosed there.<\/p>\n
In this regard, it should also be pointed out that any distinctions between the companies that make up the country’s private sector, concerning incentive programs and non-mandatory benefits, from the point of view of labor laws, cannot, as a matter of principle, be used as a parameter to establish criteria for equal pay between men and women. Clearly, the equality to be ensured is between the employees of the same company, men and women, who perform the same duties. For this reason, at least at this point in the proceedings, there is no point in disclosing this information to the general public. \u00a0<\/p>\n
Interlocutory relief was granted to the company, releasing it from the obligation to submit its personal and restricted data to the Federal Government, through the Emprega Brasil Portal, the reproduction of the transparency report prepared by the Ministry of Labor and Employment through its website and\/or its social networks, the participation of the professional unions in the preparation of any action plan to mitigate inequality, as well as the filing of a copy of the action plan with the union that represents the professional category. The plaintiff’s data will also not be disclosed through the transparency report, and no penalty will apply for non-compliance with the obligations set forth in Decree No. 11,795\/2023 and MTE Administrative Rule No. 3,714\/2023.<\/p>\n
Our conclusion is that companies wishing to preserve their rights by keeping their data and the practice of internal employment policy confidential should protect their rights as soon as possible by taking legal action and before they are fined for not providing the information.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
With the deadline for submitting transparency and equal pay reports extended to March 8 this year, companies are already moving to defend their right not to submit the data. Drogaria Pacheco filed a lawsuit before the 26th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro – RJ, under No. 5011649-62.2024.4.02.5101\/RJ, seeking interlocutory relief so that it would […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":10999,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n