|
|
Time in understanding the transformation of labor relations and their form of protection has always been slower than reality. Labor legislation emerged as a rescuer, belatedly, and after the realization, in the th century, that industrialization had generated a huge contingent of vulnerable population. SpaccaLabor Law, understood as a form of social protection and guarantees of rights, was created to serve employees because it seemed that this was the only way to support the economic inequality that was established between the person who appropriated the result of the work and the provider. . In this way, being an employee meant having support and in labor laws and, contrario sensu , those who were outside the standard model of employment relationship would not have support. For these, common law would be the basis for contracting and thus followed the binary legal model of being employed or self-employed. With the dynamics of changes in the form of production and new work models, the paradigm in which the field of action of Labor Law was built for some time now seems to no longer be subject to a standardized legal framework. The resistance of Labor Law in admitting the possible coexistence with labor situations that fall outside the traditional scope of its historical struggle was relevant to confronting, for example, the outsourcing of services or the hiring of a legal entity to provide work, self-employment or cooperative work.
In this sense, the Greece Phone Number pragmatic and dogmatic content of the resistance was aimed at consolidating the division of the productive force between exploiters and exploited, the latter represented by employees benefiting from legislation that aimed to guarantee rights and social protection. With the pandemic, there was a necessary emptying of work “under the eyes of the boss” and the objective focused on the delivery of services in those cases in which remote work could be implemented to face the crisis generated by a strong trend of work growth informal, “without a formal contract”. The contractual models adopted during this period will still be the subject of future questions. On this path of transformation, labor jurisprudence and doctrine were concerned with eliminating production systems that could undermine the application of protective labor legislation. One of the last themes prior to the labor reform of Laws nº , and ,was, without a doubt, the issue of structural subordination. Structural subordination for the recognition of an employment relationship was perhaps the last move to support, in an extremely broad way, practically any form of service provision within Labor Law, as long as it was included in the core activity of the borrower. services. Structural subordination would serve to eliminate doubts about the employment relationship, failing to inquire whether the basic elements of the intrinsic purpose of Labor Law provided for in article of the CLT were present.
This thesis, of structural subordination, with the labor reform of the aforementioned laws lost strength because it no longer matters the allocation of work to the core activity or to the dynamics of the service provider as the provision of autonomous services, outsourced or any other form, does not exclude the policyholder's guidance or the provider's responsibility. Being contractually subordinate and being responsible for the execution of the contract are different situations that must always be observed so that employment conditions are not expanded without technical rigor. Absent legal subordination, the contract aims to provide defined services that are at the level of experience and specialization of the provider. In this sense, attention was drawn to the publication on the TST website, on , news under the title “Structural subordination does not characterize an employment relationship between broker and real estate agent”, referring to the decision of the Fourth Panel ) . In his vote, Minister Caputo Bastos emphasizes that: “It should be noted that the fact that the defendants establish guidelines and measure results in the provision of services does not lead to the conclusion that legal subordination would be present. This is because every worker submits, in some way, to the business dynamics of those who hire their services, because they (the company) are the final beneficiaries of the services provided by the worker.
|
|
發表於 16:08:03