Danielle Di Marco
Lawyer at Marcos Martins Advogados
Considering the principle of motivated free will, the Judge of the 2nd Labor Court of Osasco dismissed the company’s claim for payment of unhealthy working conditions due to alleged contact with biological agents.
The employee claimed that, in carrying out her duties as a general services assistant, she had contact with unhealthy agents, since she cleaned the toilets used by all the employees.
The expert, on a visit to the Defendant company, found that the employee was exposed to chemical and biological agents without the necessary personal protective equipment, based on the employee’s own statements at the time of the examination.
In its defense, the defendant attached all the documents pertinent to the claim and later contested the expert’s conclusion.
The defense thesis and the challenge to the report were fully accepted, as the judge noted that the company had provided proof of the delivery of rubber boots, latex gloves, as well as a shirt, pants and other personal protective equipment to the employee, as well as proof that the employee had undergone training and had undertaken to use said equipment.
Thus, the judge concluded that the evidence in the case file did not allow her to accept the expert’s conclusion, and under the terms of art. 479¹ of the CPC, due to the fragility of the factual findings and because of the relevance and documentary support provided by the Defendant company, she dismissed the claim.
Judge Dr. Cleusa Aparecida de Oliveira Coelho’s decision is emblematic, as it is based on the principle of free reasoned opinion, which allows the judge to assess the evidence contained in the case file, regardless of the subject who promoted it, indicating in the decision the reasons for the formation of his conviction.
_____________
TRT-2; Case 1001488-53.2016.5.02.0382; Judge: Cleusa Aparecida de Oliveira Coelho; 2nd Labor Court. Date of publication: 26.07.2018
¹ BRAZIL. Law No. 13.105, of March 16, 2015, Art. 479. The judge shall assess the expert evidence in accordance with the provisions of art. 371, indicating in the judgment the reasons that led him to consider or fail to consider the conclusions of the report, taking into account the method used by the expert.
