|
|
The court of the 3rd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 11th Region decided to reject the agreement between Uber and an app driver added to the case file on the eve of the trial. reproduction Court of the 3rd Panel of TRT-11 understood that the agreement between the company and driver aimed to create favorable jurisprudence Reproduction The judges decided to recognize the employment relationship between the technology company and the worker and stated that the company aims to create jurisprudential uniformity. According to the rapporteur of the matter, judge Ruth Barbosa Sampai, "under the cover of the agreement, the parties seek, encouraged by the defendant's repeated stance of controlling jurisprudence, to obstruct the analysis of the merits". "The defendant's conduct does not comply with the principle of procedural good faith (art. 5, CPC / 15)," she stated. The judge pointed out that the case goes beyond the merely individual interest of the complaining party, as it affects the community in general, since it is a practice that must be rejected by everyone, with the aim of preventing the occurrence of social, business and social security dumping. , tax and labor. She argues that the court cannot bow down to Uber's attempt to camouflage the apparent jurisprudential uniformity, disguising the existence of dissenting understandings regarding the matter analyzed.
"This practice is a result of the well-known Phone Number List jurimetrics, a type of legal statistics that, in some cases, even uses artificial intelligence to achieve purposes, a priori, in accordance with the legal system, without judges realizing what is in truth, occurring. It can never be accepted by the Judiciary, even more so when constitutional precepts and principles that permeate the merely individual interest of the complainant are brought into court", he noted. In examining the merits, the judge explains that drivers absorb the risk of all races undertaken. "The control over drivers is high. Although workers are only paid when they carry out trips requested by the app, Uber continues to collect information from drivers even when they are not in a race. Using these elements, the company is able to outline patterns" , says an excerpt from the ruling. The judge also cites the concept of "psychic subordination", which is characterized by the fact that the worker is linked to the provision of services due to the need for subsistence or even so that he is not excluded from that provision for not having made enough activations to remain in that position. link under the criteria of the algorithm. Questionable jurisprudence In April this year, the 6th Panel of the 11th Chamber of the Regional Labor Court of the 15th Region stated that the platform practices " manipulation of jurisprudence ".
This is because, less than 24 hours before the trial, the parties filed a petition requesting approval of the agreement and, consequently, the removal of the case from the trial agenda. The requests were rejected by the class, for several reasons. At the time, the judges understood that the company practices labor fraud which is "purposefully camouflaged by the apparent jurisprudential uniformity, which disguises the existence of dissenting understanding regarding the matter, appearing that the jurisprudence is unified in the sense of admitting, a priori, that the facts are configured uniformly in all processes (jurimetry)”. This strategy, therefore, would impede "the natural flow of jurisprudence and the configuration of a plurality of understandings so that, finally, the competent bodies can reach a definitive position on the matter." Other side In a statement, Uber stated that it will appeal the decision, and highlighted that the decision is not a consensus in the Judiciary. Read in full: Uber clarifies that it will appeal the decision handed down by the 3rd Panel of the TRT of the 11th Region, which represents an isolated understanding and contrary to other cases already judged by the Regional Court itself and by the TST (Superior Labor Court) - the most recent of which in last month. By refusing an agreement signed between the parties, the Panel goes over the express will of its jurisdiction and completely disregards the Labor Court's directive of preference for consensual resolution of conflicts.
|
|
發表於 18:28:58