Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes (SDI-1) of the Superior Labor Court (TST) decided, in the judgment of the motion for review (embargos) of a medicine distributor from Vitória (ES), that the ratification of a commercial termination agreement (extrajudicial agreement) in the ordinary courts does not preclude the filing of an action in the Labor Courts. For SDI-1, these are distinct requests.
The case concerns the complaint of a salesperson who requested the recognition of an employment relationship with the distributor.
She claimed that she had been hired through the establishment of a commercial representation required by the company, but that she had always worked in a subordinate manner, with personal involvement, regularity and remuneration.
The distributor, in its defense, stated that the provision of services had occurred in accordance with Law 4.886/65, which regulates the activities of autonomous commercial representatives, with broad, general and unrestricted discharge of any obligations existing between the parties.
Another point sustained was the existence of an agreement ratified by the court of the Civil and Environmental Court of the District of Goiânia (GO), in which the parties, without defect of will, recognized that there was no employment relationship.
In the company’s understanding, the ratification would have produced res judicata that would make the claim formulated in the labor complaint unfeasible. Thus, before filing the labor complaint, the salesperson should have requested the rescission or annulment of the ratifying decision, which could not be done in the Labor Courts.
The employment relationship was recognized by the court of first instance and upheld by the Regional Labor Court of the 17th Region (GO) and by the Eighth Panel of the TST. For the Panel, there is no identity between the two actions, since the labor complaint refers to the request for recognition of the relationship, and the agreement in the ordinary courts concerns the commercial termination.
In the motion for review to SDI-1, the distributor argued that the salesperson had also been a party to the agreement ratification action and that, even if this were not the case, the theory of the identity of the legal relationship should be applied.
According to the argument, although there may be a distinction between some of the identifying elements, the two claims deal with the same substantive legal relationship.
The reporting justice of the motion for review, Justice Vieira de Mello Filho, highlighted that, in the agreement ratified in the ordinary courts, the salesperson was not a party, but rather the company she had established. The requests were also distinct, as were the causes of action: the labor complaint was based on the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws), and the agreement on Law 4.886/65.
“Thus, there can be no talk of res judicata,” he concluded, also recalling that the ordinary courts and the Labor Courts have distinct jurisdictions.
By unanimity, SDI-1 denied the appeal. After the publication of the ruling, a motion for clarification (embargos de declaração) was filed, which has not yet been judged.
Read other news here.
Source: TST
← Back to blog