A bricklayer will receive compensation for moral damages for being called a “tramp” and “kid” by the owner of the construction site where he worked in Barbacena, in Campo das Vertentes.
The decision is from Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region, which provides for payment of R$1,000. According to the sentence, the accused did not deny the offenses, but said she had spoken in the heat of an argument.
In the opinion of judge Iuri Pereira Pinheiro, the offenses harmed the subjective honor of the worker.
Still according to the judge, the fact that they occurred in the context of a more heated conversation does not rule out the seriousness of the offenses, especially because audios presented in the process, contrary to what the defendant stated, did not demonstrate the worker’s attempt to destabilize her.
The Court also accepted the request for refund of R$55, relating to the repair of a drill owned by the woman. According to the decision, it was proven that the equipment was used by the bricklayer during the provision of services, but there was no proof whether the wear was natural or misuse.
In the action, the 1st Labor Court of Barbacena also judged the possible employment relationship between the bricklayer and his employer.
The man claimed that he worked on the construction of a residential property in 2022, receiving weekly remuneration of R$750, without recording an employment contract in his employment record.
The court, however, ruled out the employment relationship, recognizing the existence of a construction contract between the bricklayer and the owner of the work. She recognized the provision of services, but maintained that the bricklayer acted autonomously, without the requirements of the employment relationship, mainly subordination.
Furthermore, she presented prints of cell phone conversations, in which the boy, on several occasions, simply reported his absence or delay at work, which, as the judge noted, indicates a dynamic of providing services with autonomy on the part of the worker. .
The request for recognition of the employment relationship was dismissed as unfounded, as was the payment of the resulting labor installments.