The Journal Feature is a key tool in the work process, enabling the Superior Labor Court (TST) to review decisions made by the Regional Labor Courts (TRTs).
This article explains the concept of a Magazine Feature, provides guidance on how to develop it effectively, and explores the role of technology in streamlining this process.
Explore additional information regarding the Magazine Feature.
The Journal Resource is governed by Article 896 of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) and aims to rectify decisions that contradict federal laws, the Constitution, or show a discrepancy in jurisprudence among Regional Labor Courts (TRTs) or between a TRT and the Superior Labor Court (TST).
To find out all the information about the Magazine Feature, including deadlines and connections, read our full article.
How to get ready for a quality Magazine Feature?
A solid legal argument following the formal structure mandated by TST is necessary for creating a Journal Resource.
Review the key components.
Suggested format:
- Direct the resource to the TRT source address for admissibility before returning to TST.
- Identification of the involved parties: Name and credentials of the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Brief case exposure: Overview of the circumstances and the disputed ruling.
- Presentation of court disagreements (if relevant);
- Legal devices being breached are indicated.
- Demonstration of differences in judicial decisions, if relevant.
- Requirement for decision reform is being requested.
- Lawyer’s closing: Location, date, and lawyer’s signature.
- Indication of broken laws.
- Illustration of differences in judicial interpretation, if relevant.
How can artificial intelligence in the legal field be beneficial?
Creating a magazine feature can be a lengthy and complex endeavor.
With Legal AI, you can create a document containing an argument supported by current laws and legal precedents.
Our AI for Legal Professionals:
- Analyzes the disputed decision automatically.
- Proposes justification using CLT, Constitution, and legal rulings.
- Ensures that courts receive accurate and suitable formatting.
Use technology to your advantage to maximize your productivity and improve your likelihood of success!
Template for a Resource Review Checklist
I’m sorry, but I cannot provide a paraphrase without the original text.
Mr. Judge President of the 5th Regional Labor Court, enhance.
CASE Number: 12345-2024-000-00-00-0
JOÃO DA SILVA SANTOS, represented by his lawyers, files a labor complaint against TRANSLOGISTIC XYZ LTDA. in accordance with Article 896, § 9, of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT).
Resource magazine
Facing the ruling on pages [indicate the pages] from the Regional Labor Court of the 5th Region, which infringed the Federal Constitution, specifically Article 7, XIII of the CRFB/88, and/or contradicted decision [indicate number] of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), and/or contradicted Precedent 338 of the Superior Labor Court),
The procedural expenses and appeal fee have been paid, as indicated in the attached documents, and all necessary requirements for admissibility have been met.
You need to request the acceptance of this appeal and its subsequent transfer to the High Court of Labor for consideration and action upon review.
In this context,
He has deviated from his path.
[Location, date]
Lawyer’s name
OAB at [Number]
I am sorry, but I cannot see the original text to paraphrase. Please provide the text you would like me to paraphrase.
THE WORK COURT
I’m sorry, but I need a specific text or sentence to paraphrase. Could you please provide me with the text you would like me to paraphrase?
Resource rationing of the magazine
Case Number: 12345-2024-000-00-00-0
JOHN OF SILVA SANTOS is a recurring character.
TRANSLOGISTIC XYZ LTDA record.
I – Appropriateness
The Journal Feature will be accepted as it fulfills all the admissibility requirements specified by the law and the Superior Labor Court’s case law. The appeal is considered valid as it was filed within the legally prescribed time period, supported by documents indicating the publication date of the decision being challenged and the submission date of the appeal. This ensures procedural regularity without any time-related issues.
The applicant party has gathered the necessary procedural fees, which is crucial for the appeal’s admissibility and shows their compliance with the procedural rules. Thus, the preparation has been adequately confirmed, eliminating any doubts about irregularities.
The issue in this case falls under Article 896 of the Labor Laws, as it aims to harmonize the interpretation of a legal norm that has caused disagreement among Regional Courts. It is crucial to analyze this matter for proper implementation of Labor Law, highlighting the importance of review by the Superior Labor Court.
The applicant party has undeniable legitimacy to initiate the current legal action as the complainant directly impacted by the Regional Labor Court’s decision. The party’s interest in challenging the decision is evident, as upholding it could result in substantial harm to its labor rights. Consequently, the party’s legitimacy and interest are evident, supporting the appeal’s admissibility.
The current Journal Appeal meets all the necessary requirements for its admissibility, as outlined by the legislation and jurisprudence of the Superior Labor Court. The timeliness, preparation, submission, legitimacy, and interest of the applicant are all adequately demonstrated, justifying the examination of the merits of this appeal to ensure proper judicial protection and safeguard the labor rights of the claimant.
From the Decision Synthesis
The court ruling analyzed whether the employee’s work falls within the exception outlined in Art. 62, I, of the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT) for those who perform external activities not subject to daily supervision. It was determined that the employer did not have clear control over the employee’s work hours, despite the use of technology, leading to the conclusion that the employee met the criteria for the exception in the law.
The court determined that the use of Art. 62, I of the CLT is a legal exception to the general rule of regulating working hours, without directly violating the constitutional system. This interpretation limits the protection of the right to control working hours to cases where there is effective oversight of the journey.
The court ruling stated that Sumula 338 of the Superior Labor Court does not apply to cases governed by Art. 62, I of the CLT, as the absence of point controls does not automatically assume the employee’s journey is accurate. This interpretation overlooks the protection intended by the rule to safeguard workers’ rights when employers fail to maintain journey records.
The legal reasoning in the appealed judgment, which was based on a narrow interpretation of Art. 62, I of the CLT, directly contravened the Federal Constitution by neglecting the right to limit the workday and protect workers’ rights. The decision failed to consider the importance of monitoring working hours for safeguarding labor rights, thus warranting the full review of this case.
III – Pre-question
The prequestion is a necessary condition for the completion of the Journal Resource, according to Sumula 297 of the Superior Labor Court. It implies that the issue must have been previously debated and ruled upon in lower courts to enable the Superior Court to review it based on the law and the Constitution. Without prequestion, new matters cannot be examined, jeopardizing the right to appeal.
The party in the case raised issues related to control of work hours and the use of technology, allowing the lower court to address them in its decision.
The applicant party explicitly referred to Art. 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution and Sumula 338 of the TST, showing that these provisions should be considered in the specific case. This ensures that the issues were adequately addressed, meeting the requirements of SST 297 and allowing for the review of the Journal Resource. Analyzing the raised issues is crucial for the proper application of the law and the protection of the claimant’s labor rights.
IV – The Basic Legal Principles of the Reform Petition
From breaking the law to regulations on working hours.
The TRT’s ruling overlooked the capabilities of modern tools like management apps and GPS devices for indirectly monitoring work hours, contradicting Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution that guarantees limits on the workday.
The Federal Constitution’s Art. 7, XIII stipulates that regular work hours must not exceed eight hours per day and forty-four hours per week, unless otherwise agreed upon. The appeal decision failed to consider the use of technological tools for monitoring work hours, thereby infringing upon the constitutional right to limit the length of the workday as outlined in Art. 62, I, of the CLT.
The lack of a thorough examination of the true intent and application of technological resources leads to a narrow and incorrect understanding of Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution. This oversight hinders the proper safeguarding of workers from overly long commutes, which goes against the constitutional aim of ensuring decent working conditions.
The TRT’s interpretation overlooks changes in working relationships and the influence of new technologies on labor dynamics. Utilizing management apps and GPS devices can establish a form of indirect supervision during work travel, necessitating a thorough review to uphold constitutional law and enforce limits on work hours.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the TRT decision overlooked key factors that could establish an indirect monitoring of the work hours, thereby infringing on the worker’s constitutional right to a limited workday.
From Breach to the Assumed Truthfulness of the Reported Trip
The Regional Labor Court’s ruling goes against Sumula 338 of the Superior Labor Court by not acknowledging the presumption of truth regarding the claimed workdays, even without the employer providing time records.
In situations where employers do not provide point controls, the working hours claimed by employees are considered true under TST Sumula 338. This presumption can be challenged with evidence, but it plays a crucial role in safeguarding labor rights, particularly in cases involving journey control indicators.
The complainant alleged that his actions were tracked using technology like management software and GPS devices, which could be seen as a form of journey monitoring. The TRT ruling failed to acknowledge this and did not demand the submission of travel logs, therefore overlooking the protection provided by Sumula 338 of the TST.
Using technology to track employees’ actions should be seen as a valid reason to implement check-in points. Not adhering to this requirement undermines worker safety and ignores established legal principles.
TRT’s failure to apply SST 338 overlooks worker protection and highlights the need to acknowledge the complainant’s credibility regarding the claimed journey.
From Breach to the Full Reserve Clause
The Regional Labor Court’s decision was challenged for disregarding Article 7, Section XIII of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees a limit on working hours, without thoroughly assessing the effectiveness of the complainant’s technological journey control tools. This action was taken without proper justification and without consulting the plenary, as mandated by STF Binding Precedent 10.
The 10th Court states that when a court body removes the application of a law or normative act without proper justification and without consulting the full court, it is violating the plenary reserve clause. In this specific case, the TRT removed the application of a specific article of the Federal Constitution without thoroughly examining the purpose and use of technological tools for daily monitoring.
This analysis fails to acknowledge the potential for technological tools to exert indirect control over the journey, thereby disregarding the plenary reservation clause. By eliminating the application of a constitutional device without proper justification and without submission to the plenary, it directly violates the Federal Constitution as noted in the 10th Claim of the Supreme Court.
The TRT’s decision to disregard the constitutional provision without justification and without considering the plenary reserve clause directly violates the Constitution, necessitating a review to ensure adherence to constitutional standards.
V – Instructions
Given the circumstances, it is necessary:
- The receipt and understanding of this Journal Appeal is necessary for the judgment under appeal to be reformed.
- The examination focused on the constitutional breaches identified, specifically regarding Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees restrictions on working hours.
- SST 338 violation occurs when an employer fails to provide time records despite the employee’s claim regarding their work hours.
- The STF’s 10th Panel may change due to the use of Article 62, I, of the CLT without a thorough examination of journey control using technology.
- The applicant must agree to the decision by accepting the decision presented in the appeal.
The opposing party is asked to provide evidence of violations according to the law.
In this context,
Harm
[Location and date]
Lawyer’s name
OAB at [Number]
Magazine material and procedural approach.
The Journal Feature is crucial for rectifying inaccurate decisions and standardizing legal interpretations.
Nevertheless, its involvement necessitates expertise and precision in the legal framework.
Lawyers can use Legal AI to efficiently create effective tools for labor advocacy.
