Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 20:03:19 GMT -8
The Judiciary cannot play the role of guardian of the property interests of companies affected by the legitimate right to strike provided for in the Constitution. With this understanding, judge Grijalbo Fernandes Coutinho, of the th Labor Court of Brasília, denied an injunction to Banco Bradesco, which intended to prohibit its employees from going on strike in front of the institution.
Bradesco filed a Writ of Mandamus questioning the decision that declared the strike movement legal. According to the bank, members of the Union of Employees in Banking Establishments of Brasília (DF) are positioning themselves in front of its branches in order to prevent employees, customers and users from accessing those facilities, thus giving rise to a violation of the right strike and contrary to the provisions of article of Law ,/ Furthermore, he maintained that he has been suffering from embezzlement and disturbances in his possession, which is why he filed a Prohibitory Interdict action.
For the bank, the decision violated the right to possession Austria Phone Numbers List and freedom of movement. Bradesco argued that there is a periculum in mora in the impossibility of, due to coercion, not being able to carry out its banking activities normally, in addition to making it impossible to enter customers and employees who want to work.
Therefore, he asked the union to refrain from carrying out acts that hinder the exercise of fundamental rights by third parties and that interfere with the peaceful and peaceful possession of their properties throughout the duration of the strike movement.
The judge considered that the national bank strike is public and notorious. And the allegation that it is “violating the right to possession is not compatible with the right to strike, as this workers' movement for better working conditions does not seek the expropriation of real estate owned by the employer.”
According to the judge, the resource used is not the appropriate instrument for resolving labor disputes, under penalty of creating an artifice to, ultimately, jeopardize the mobilization itself in the vicinity of the strikers' workplaces.
He recalled that the right to strike is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Therefore, “strikers are free to demonstrate anywhere, and only possible abuses should not be tolerated”.
In this case, according to the judge, in view of the documentary evidence attached to the case, there is no credibility in the allegations articulated in the initial statement, as there is no threat of imminent disturbance or embezzlement, not even a possible possibility of it coming to an end. to occur.
According to Grijalbo Fernandes Coutinho, “the business allegation, therefore, has a clear subjective and generic character, appearing more like an inhibitory stance towards the strike movement that had barely been triggered. In such circumstances, granting the requested prohibitory interdict means issuing a blank check to Banco Bradesco SA, in order to definitively make the strike guaranteed by article of the Magna Law unfeasible.
Bradesco filed a Writ of Mandamus questioning the decision that declared the strike movement legal. According to the bank, members of the Union of Employees in Banking Establishments of Brasília (DF) are positioning themselves in front of its branches in order to prevent employees, customers and users from accessing those facilities, thus giving rise to a violation of the right strike and contrary to the provisions of article of Law ,/ Furthermore, he maintained that he has been suffering from embezzlement and disturbances in his possession, which is why he filed a Prohibitory Interdict action.
For the bank, the decision violated the right to possession Austria Phone Numbers List and freedom of movement. Bradesco argued that there is a periculum in mora in the impossibility of, due to coercion, not being able to carry out its banking activities normally, in addition to making it impossible to enter customers and employees who want to work.
Therefore, he asked the union to refrain from carrying out acts that hinder the exercise of fundamental rights by third parties and that interfere with the peaceful and peaceful possession of their properties throughout the duration of the strike movement.
The judge considered that the national bank strike is public and notorious. And the allegation that it is “violating the right to possession is not compatible with the right to strike, as this workers' movement for better working conditions does not seek the expropriation of real estate owned by the employer.”
According to the judge, the resource used is not the appropriate instrument for resolving labor disputes, under penalty of creating an artifice to, ultimately, jeopardize the mobilization itself in the vicinity of the strikers' workplaces.
He recalled that the right to strike is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Therefore, “strikers are free to demonstrate anywhere, and only possible abuses should not be tolerated”.
In this case, according to the judge, in view of the documentary evidence attached to the case, there is no credibility in the allegations articulated in the initial statement, as there is no threat of imminent disturbance or embezzlement, not even a possible possibility of it coming to an end. to occur.
According to Grijalbo Fernandes Coutinho, “the business allegation, therefore, has a clear subjective and generic character, appearing more like an inhibitory stance towards the strike movement that had barely been triggered. In such circumstances, granting the requested prohibitory interdict means issuing a blank check to Banco Bradesco SA, in order to definitively make the strike guaranteed by article of the Magna Law unfeasible.