|
|
When an apparent franchise agreement turns out to be outsourcing of services, the company receiving the services is subsequently held responsible for paying the labor fees owed to the contractor's employees. This was understood by the Regional Labor Court of the th Region, in an appeal by a former employee of a company supposedly franchised by Gol. reproduction Gol goes from franchisor taking services to labor action Reproduction The author of the action reports that Gol would create "disguised franchises" to avoid paying labor charges. Due to the mischaracterization of the franchise contract, the former employee asks that the company be responsible for the credits due, as she was fired without just cause. The th Labor Court of Recife dismissed the request as unfounded. The reporting judge, Paulo Alcântara , explains that the franchise contract cannot be confused with outsourcing, as it is a contract in which there is a transfer of rights to use the brand or technology by the franchisor company to the franchisee, and does not constitute an employment relationship.
However, according to the Greece Phone Number rapporteur, as Gol allocated part of its business activity to be carried out by another company (where the appellant worked), the configuration of the relationship became one of outsourcing services. Thus, Gol assumes subsidiary responsibility for debts existing between the outsourced company and its employees, as per TST Summary , stated Alcântara. It was proven, through testimonial evidence, that the complainant worked directly for Gol, and was even transferred from one company to another without any notice. The judge understood that Gol benefited from the author's work, therefore it should “ be held subsidiarily responsible for labor obligations not fulfilled by the service provider”. With information from the TRT- advisory.The fact is that the text that was approved represents, without a shadow of a doubt, a disincentive to hiring women of childbearing age during the pandemic. [] Full bill available at: Such as: the payment, by the Federal Government, of the Emergency Employment and Income Preservation Benefit; the proportional reduction of working hours and salary; andIt is worth noting that the provision of technological equipment and the necessary and appropriate infrastructure for providing remote work, as well as the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the employee, are not part of the employee's remuneration.
In other words, such utilities are not part of the calculation basis for labor and social security charges. For this reason, and considering that the provision of equipment and adequate infrastructure for the home office is often related to health and safety at work (such as ergonomics), we have noticed that, in practice, several companies have chosen to grant a cost allowance to its employees to cover said expenses. To grant this allowance, it is only important to make an agreement, in writing, with the employee. This amount must normally be transferred to the payroll. If the company grants the equipment itself, such as mouse, keyboard, computers, chairs, etc., it is also important to formalize this in writing. Although the scenario above is, from a labor point of view, the one that brings the most legal security to companies, it is still possible to find those who choose to take advantage of the freedom of negotiation brought by the literalness of article -D of the CLT, adjusting the liability for expenses incurred in teleworking to the employee.
|
|
發表於 16:55:37