Damages for pain and suffering in the Labor Court have always been the subject of great discussions; employees being discontent with the values awarded by the judges, and companies fearing the industry of damages for pain and suffering, since requests of this nature have always been made in the majority of claims.
Before the enactment of Law 13467/2017, popularly known as the labor reform law, there was no specific rule in the Labor Code (CLT) addressing compensation for off-balance damages and pain and suffering, and judicial decisions were grounded on the Federal Constitution and the Civil Code.
From the enactment of Law 13467/2017, a specific title on off-balance sheet damage was introduced in the CLT and, in articles 223-A to 223-G, parameters were assigned for the assessment of claims involving compensation, whether for off-balance damage or pain and suffering.
According to these provisions, there was a classification of the nature of the legal good protected in offenses of minor, medium, major, and extreme nature and, according to this classification, the following parameters were stipulated:
- Offense of minor nature, up to 3 times the last contracted salary of the complainant;
- Offense of medium nature, up to 5 times the last contracted salary of the complainant;
- Offense of major nature, up to 20 times the last contracted salary of the complainant;
- Offense of extreme nature, up to 50 times the last contracted salary of the complainant;
It happens that before these parameters, some institutions, among them the Association of Magistrates of the Labor Court and the Federal Council of the OAB, filed direct actions of unconstitutionality questioning the constitutionality of the rules established by the labor reform law, since moral damage was being price listed.
On June 23, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) decided that the price listing of compensation for off-balance damages or pain and suffering provided for in the CLT must be observed by the judge as a guiding criterion for the grounds of the judicial decision.
For the rapporteur of the judgment of the actions, Minister Gilmar Mendes, the ordinary law may not provide maximum values of pain and suffering, either in the scope of labor relations, or in the civil liability in general.
Thus, the fixing of conviction in an amount higher than that provided for in the CLT will be possible, provided that it is duly motivated, allowing the judges not to be restricted to the parameters of the values attributed in the provisions that were introduced in the CLT through the labor reform law.
In any case, the best alternative aimed at saving with compensation for pain and suffering, is to provide employees with constant training so that labor relations are in harmony and in a balanced way between capital and labor.
The firm’s labor team is available for guidance on this and other topics of Labor Law.
Author: Peterson Vilela Muta
