An operational security inspector filed a labor claim against several companies that hires security services from the company where he worked, claiming such companies' secondary liability for labor-related payments his employer failed to make to him.

In his allegations, claimant upheld it was part of his work routine to verify the progress of services, with daily visits of about 30 minutes to several locations. On account of that, he understood that the clients used his labor, therefore they should be liable for the labor-related payments not made.

The claimant was not successful in first instance, having the court understood that his activity benefitted only his employer and not the clients thereof.

Dissatisfied with the decision, claimant filed an appeal to the Regional Labor Court of the 9th Region (PR), which decided to uphold the first instance decision and then another appeal, which the court denied to entertain.

Then, the worker filed an interlocutory appeal (Proceedings: AIRR-199-96.2010.5.09.0001) to the Superior Labor Court (TST).

The Second Panel of the TST, denied the appeal, understanding that, under the terms of the decisions rendered in the ordinary instances that the claimant did not work directly for the clients at their establishments, but only visited them to inspect his employers' security guards, reason why the client company's secondary liability would not be characterized.

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.