The 6th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (TRT-MG) upheld the sentence which declared annulled the dismissal of a worker who suffered of panic disorder and determined her readmittance into employment in the same position previously occupied by her.
According to the TRT-MG, although the disease has no occupational origin, the dismissal carried out under these conditions is considered arbitrary and abusive, which results in the readmittance of the worker into employment.
As noted by the reporting judge of the appeal, Rogério Ferreira Valle, the claimant had just returned from a period of absence for sickness when she was dismissed.
The worker went to the occupational medicine clinic in order to attend the exam for dismissal and the doctor himself asked for a psychiatric opinion to assess her suitability for the job.
However, the employer ignored this advice and dismissed the employee even before the results of the tests. In the overleaf of the Employment Agreement Termination (TRCT) the employer made a reservation about it.
According to the reporting judge, the employer's conduct violated the article 168, II, of the Labor Code, which foresees the obligation of a medical examination for the termination of the employment contract. Likewise, it was disobeyed the NR-7 of the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Ordinance 8 of May 5th, 1996.
It was proved by both medical certificate and expert examination that the claimant had no emotional or physical condition of labor when she was dismissed. The former employee was in medical and psychological treatment, including taking medication, and, for this reason, the employer should not dismiss her.
Accompanying the reporting judge, the Panel decided to uphold the decision of the lower court judge regarding the annulment of the dismissal of the claimant and ordered her readmittance into employment, in the same position, with the payment of the wages owed since the date of the termination of the employment contract until the effective readmittance and other advantages granted to other employees.
Case No. RO 0001703-64.2010.5.03.0047
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
