The Journal Feature plays a key role in the work process as it enables the Superior Labor Court (TST) to review decisions made by the Regional Labor Courts (TRTs).
This article explains the concept of a Magazine Feature, provides guidance on how to create one effectively, and discusses how technology can enhance this process.
Explore additional information about the Magazine Feature.
The Journal Resource is governed by Article 896 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) and aims to rectify rulings that breach federal laws, the Constitution, or showcase a discrepancy in case law between Regional Labor Tribunals (TRTs) or between a TRT and the Superior Labor Court (TST).
For comprehensive information on the Magazine Feature, including deadlines and wiring details, refer to our full article.
How to create an effective Magazine Feature?
A well-founded legal argument and adherence to the formal structure mandated by TST are essential for creating a Journal Resource.
Explore the primary components.
Suggested format:
- Direct the resource to the TRT source address for admissibility before returning to TST.
- Identification of the parties involves providing the names and qualifications of both the applicant and the defendant.
- Brief case exposure: Overview of the details and the disputed ruling.
- Legal basis involves identifying the legal provisions that have been breached and showing any inconsistencies in judicial rulings, if relevant.
- Signs of breached legal regulations;
- Illustration of differences in judicial interpretation, if relevant.
- Requirement for decision reform request.
- Lawyer’s closure should include their location, the date, and their signature.
- Violation of legal provisions indication.
- Judicial divergence demonstration (if relevant).
In what way can Artificial Intelligence in the legal field be beneficial?
Writing an article for a magazine can require a significant amount of time and involve technical aspects.
Legal AI allows you to create a detailed argument supported by current legislation and case law.
Our AI for Legal Professionals:
- Analyzes the decision in dispute automatically.
- Proposes arguments based on CLT, Constitution, and legal precedent.
- Guarantees that courts receive the proper and suitable formatting.
Use technology to your advantage to maximize your efficiency and improve your likelihood of success!
Template for Resource Review Preparation
I’m sorry, but I need the text that you would like me to paraphrase in order to provide you with a response.
Mr. Doctor Judge President of the Regional Labor Court of the 5th Regional District, you are excellent.
CASE Number: 12345-2024-000-00-00-0
JOÃO DA SILVA SANTOS, represented by his lawyers, files a labor complaint against TRANSLOGISTIC XYZ LTDA., citing Article 896, § 9, of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT).
Resource Magazine
The ruling on pages [indicate the pages] from the Regional Labor Court of the 5th Region, which infringed the Federal Constitution, specifically Article 7, XIII of the CRFB/88, and/or contrary to decision no. [indicate number] of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), and/or contrary to Precedent no. 338 of the Superior Labor Court.
The procedural expenses and appeal fee have been paid, as shown in the attached documents, and all necessary conditions for admissibility have been met.
Therefore, you need to request the acceptance of this appeal and its subsequent referral to the High Court of Labor for further action once it is reviewed.
In this context,
He has deviated from his path.
[Location, date]
The lawyer’s name
OAB at [Number]
I’m sorry, but I do not see any text provided for paraphrasing. Please provide the text that you would like me to paraphrase.
The Work Court
I’m sorry, but I can’t see any text to paraphrase. Could you please provide me with the text you’d like me to paraphrase?
Resource rationing for the magazine.
CASE Number: 12345-2024-000-00-00-0
John of Silva Santos is a recurring character.
TRANSLOGISTIC XYZ LTDA record.
Admissibility – Part I
This Journal Feature is deemed admissible as it fulfills all the requirements for admissibility outlined in the legislation and case law of the Superior Labor Court. The appeal is valid as it was filed within the specified legal timeframe, supported by documents showing the publication date of the decision in question and the filing date of the appeal. This ensures procedural regularity without the need to address timeliness.
The applicant party has gathered the procedural costs, which is crucial for the admissibility of the journal resource and shows their compliance with the current procedural rules. This confirms the proper preparation and eliminates any concerns about irregularity.
The issue in this case falls under Article 896 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws, aiming to standardize legal interpretations that have caused disagreements among Regional Courts. Analyzing this matter is crucial for applying Labor Law correctly and justifies review by the Superior Labor Court.
The applicant party’s right to file the current lawsuit is unquestionable, as they were directly impacted by the Regional Labor Court’s decision. They have a stake in challenging the decision because upholding it could result in substantial harm to their labor rights. Therefore, the party’s legitimacy and interest are evident, supporting the acceptance of the appeal.
The current Journal Appeal meets all the required criteria for its acceptance, as set forth by the legislation and case law of the Superior Labor Court. The timeliness, preparation, filing, legitimacy, and applicant’s interest have been adequately demonstrated, warranting a review of the merits of this appeal to ensure proper judicial protection and safeguard the labor rights of the plaintiff.
II – Derived from the Compilation of the Choice
The court’s decision analyzed the issue of the employee’s status under Article 62, I, of the Consolidation of Labor Laws, which exempts employees who perform external activities incompatible with daily supervision from the control regime. The court found that despite the employee engaging in external activities, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the employer effectively monitored the workday, even with technological tools. As a result, the court determined that the employee fell under the exception outlined in the law.
The court determined that the use of Art. 62, I of the CLT is a legal exception to the standard regulation of working hours under Art. 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution. This interpretation limits the protection of the right to control working hours, stating that it applies only when actual control of working hours is present.
The court ruled that Sumula 338 of the Superior Labor Court does not apply to cases governed by Art. 62, I of the CLT as it does not presume the veracity of the employee’s work hours in the absence of point controls, thus disregarding the protection it provides for workers when employers fail to keep proper records of work hours.
The judgment being appealed violated the Federal Constitution by interpreting Art. 62, I of the CLT restrictively and disregarding the importance of effective control over working hours for protecting workers’ rights.
III – Preliminary question
The prequestion is a necessary condition for finalizing the Journal Resource, as mandated by Sumula 297 of the Superior Labor Court. It stipulates that for an appeal to be considered, the issue must have been previously debated and ruled upon in lower courts, enabling the Superior Court to assess it in light of the law and the Federal Constitution. Without prequestion, the examination of issues not addressed in prior rulings is hindered, jeopardizing the right to appeal.
The recurring party in the case discussed the relevant issues related to journey control and its connection with the Federal Constitution’s Article 7, XIII, and argued against the applicability of STI 338 Sumula. Specific questions were raised in the appeal regarding indirect journey control using technology and the compatibility of Article 62, I of the CLT with the constitutional provision on limiting the workday. These issues were properly considered, enabling the lower court to address them.
The applicant party explicitly referred to Art. 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution and TST Sumula 338, indicating that these provisions should be considered in the specific case. This ensures that the matter was adequately prequestioned, meeting the requirements of SST 297 and allowing for the review of the Journal Resource. Analyzing the raised issues is crucial for the proper enforcement of rights and the protection of the claimant’s labor rights.
IV – The Legal Basis of the Reform Application
From Breaching Constitutional Regulations to Setting Boundaries on Working Hours
The Regional Labor Court (TRT) decision did not consider how technology tools like management apps and GPS devices could indirectly monitor the working hours, which goes against Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing a limit on the workday.
Article 7, Section XIII of the Federal Constitution mandates that regular working hours should not exceed eight hours per day and forty-four hours per week, unless specified in an agreement or collective bargaining agreement. The ruling in question failed to consider the use of technological tools for tracking work hours, thereby disregarding the constitutional right to limit the length of the workday.
Failing to thoroughly examine the true intent and utilization of technological tools leads to a limited and incorrect understanding of Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution. This oversight hinders the proper safeguarding of workers from excessive work hours, which goes against the constitutional aim of ensuring decent working conditions.
The TRT’s interpretation overlooks changes in work relationships and the effects of new technologies on labor dynamics. Utilizing management apps and GPS devices can establish a form of indirect supervision during work travel, necessitating a thorough review to ensure alignment with constitutional regulations concerning work hours.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the TRT’s decision failed to consider key factors that could establish an indirect control over the work schedule, thereby infringing upon the worker’s constitutional right to a limited workday.
From violating to assuming the truthfulness of the claimed trip.
The ruling by the Regional Labor Court (TRT) goes against Sumula 338 of the Superior Labor Court (TST) as it does not acknowledge the presumed truthfulness of the day claimed by the plaintiff, even when the employer fails to provide clock-in records.
In situations where employers do not present time records, the working hours claimed by employees are assumed to be accurate according to TST Sumula 338. This assumption can be challenged with evidence to the contrary, but it is crucial for safeguarding labor rights, particularly when there are indications of monitoring working hours.
The complainant argued that his actions were being monitored through management apps and GPS devices, which could be seen as a form of monitoring his movements. However, the TRT ruling failed to acknowledge this claim and did not ask for the travel records, thus neglecting the protection provided by Sumula 338 of the TST.
The use of technology to monitor employees should be seen as a reason to implement clock-in systems. Ignoring this requirement undermines worker protection and goes against established legal decisions.
Thus, TRT’s failure to apply SST 338 leads to an interpretation that ignores the protection provided to workers, highlighting the importance of acknowledging the complainant’s presumed truthfulness regarding the journey.
From Breach to the Provision of Full Discretion
The Regional Labor Court’s decision contested the application of Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the limitation of the workday, without thoroughly evaluating the effectiveness of the journey control technology employed by the plaintiff. This removal was done without adequate justification and without bringing the issue before the full court, as mandated by Precedent 10 of the Supreme Court.
The 10th Court argues that when a court body removes the application of a law without proper reasoning and without consulting the full court, it violates the plenary reserve clause. In a specific case, the TRT removed the application of a constitutional article without thoroughly analyzing the purpose and use of technological tools for daily control.
This explanation fails to acknowledge the potential for technological tools to indirectly control the journey, thereby violating the plenary reservation clause by not properly justifying the removal of a constitutional device and failing to seek approval from the plenary. This action directly challenges the Federal Constitution, as emphasized in the 10th Claim of the Supreme Court.
The TRT’s decision to disregard the constitutional provision without justification and without respecting the plenary reserve clause directly violates the Constitution and needs to be reviewed to ensure adherence to constitutional standards.
V – Instructions
Given the circumstances, it is necessary:
- The Journal Appeal must be received and understood in order to reform the judgment under appeal.
- The examination of the reported constitutional breaches focused on Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the restriction of daily working hours.
- The absence of time records from the employer is seen as a violation of SST 338, indicating a presumption of truth regarding the employee’s claimed work hours.
- The STF’s 10th Panel could change due to the use of Article 62, I, of the CLT, without a thorough examination of the journey control using technological means.
- The applicant must agree to the decision by accepting the decision put forth in the appeal.
The opposing party is being asked to provide evidence of violations as required by law.
In this context,
Harm or damage caused to the body.
[Location, date]
The Lawyer’s Name
OAB at [Number]
Magazine information and approach to procedures
The Journal Feature is crucial for rectifying incorrect decisions and standardizing legal interpretations.
Its involvement necessitates a thorough understanding of technical concepts and a strong grasp of legal principles.
Lawyers can efficiently create effective resources for labor advocacy with the help of Legal AI.