All employees hired under the Labor Code (CLT) are entitled to an intra-day break as a rest period so that they can rest or eat during their working hours. In a new ruling by the Superior Labor Court (TST), however, it was made possible for companies to adapt what had previously been agreed to the new rules brought in by the Labor Reform in 2017, in certain cases – generating changes that should be carefully analyzed in order to avoid legal disagreements that could damage business.
One of the main changes brought about by the Reform was the flexibilization of the period during which this break is granted, which can be reduced by collective agreement or convention, provided that the minimum limit of 30 minutes is respected – along with the recognition of the validity of collective negotiations on the subject and the payment of compensation only for the suppressed period, in the case of partial enjoyment.
In addition, it was established that failure to grant the agreed intra-workday break does not give rise to the right to payment of one hour in full, in addition to reflexes, but rather of the suppressed period paid simply and for its residual fraction. This was a positive precedent with regard to employment contracts in force, but one that still raised doubts in many companies.
In one of the most recent cases recorded in January of this year, the Fifth Panel of the Superior Labor Court limited, until the day before the Labor Reform came into force, the effectiveness of a court agreement signed in 2015 between the Labor Prosecutor’s Office and a security company, in the case of a public civil action (ACP) filed by the MPT, with regard to intra-workday breaks.
The decision was handed down in a review action, the aim of which was to adapt what had been agreed in the conciliation agreement signed with the Labor Prosecutor’s Office to the new legal provisions in force since Law 13.467/17, regarding the granting of the minimum break for rest and meals. In the original agreement, the security company undertook to grant current and future contracts, under penalty of a fine, an intra-day break of at least one hour for continuous work lasting more than six hours, and fifteen minutes for work lasting more than four hours, up to a limit of six hours.
As a result, security companies, and possibly other companies in the same situation, were allowed to file a revision action to bring the agreements signed to adjust their conduct into line with the legal provisions of labor legislation in force since Law 13. 467/17, especially when the terms of the agreement signed are perpetuated over time, given that such contracts can follow the guidelines of collective and/or individual agreements that are authorized to make some rules more flexible, without running the risk of breaching any agreement previously signed in the context of a GPA, since it can be adjusted through the Review Action.
This new agreement handed down by the TST opens up a range of beneficial possibilities for companies that decide to sign new agreements regarding the flexibilization of intra-workday breaks for their employees, as long as their minimum limits continue to be respected in accordance with the established legal rules. However, in any decision made, it is essential to have the maximum legal support to ensure that the rules are complied with, so that contractual relations remain healthy and secure, far from disagreements that could lead to conflicts between those involved.
