Marília Silva de Melo
Lawyer at Marcos Martins Advogados
For the Sixth Panel of the Superior Labor Court, the labor court has jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit brought by the widow and heirs of a self-employed caretaker who died as a result of an accident at work in a residence in the state of Rio de Janeiro/RJ.
The Court held that, although he was hired as a self-employed caretaker, it was an employment relationship.
For the rapporteur of the heirs’ appeal, the fact that the worker was self-employed does not mean that the labor court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. For the rapporteur, the fact that there is no right to social security benefits as a result of the accident at work because the worker was self-employed is irrelevant, as the social security issue is not to be confused with the civil issue arising from the employment contract
The non-existence of the right to social security benefits was the reasoning of the 1st Regional Court, which had ruled that the labor court did not have jurisdiction, since it understood that the self-employment relationship, with the order to pay moral and material damages, and not the employment relationship, was an accessory claim to social security benefits, to which he would not be entitled.
The decision was based on Sumula 392 of the TST, which recognizes the competence of the Labour Court to judge actions for compensation for moral and material damages arising from the employment relationship, even those brought by the heirs of the deceased.
The family members’ appeal was unanimously upheld by the 6th Panel, which ordered the case to be returned to the court of origin for judgment on the merits of the case.
