Acidente do trabalho em ‘home office’

• Autor(a) principal: Dias, Denise Elaine do Carmo
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/27500
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PRIVADO::DIREITO DO TRABALHO; Teletrabalho; Home office; Acidente; Princípios; Infortunística; Telework; Home office; Accident; Principles; Security

The distance work or home office, brings in its essence the impossibility of service taker’s surveillance implementation, beyond the service maker's headquarters limits. The exercised fiscalization by the service taker is needed to ensure the service provider’s physical, mental and moral integraty, and, considering that the labor safety standards are public order, the State fiscalization through the Ministry of Labor and Employment should also inspect your regular application. So, when occurs work accident in the home office regime, there is an existence of conflict of constitutional order between the principles of inviolability of the home and of human dignity, as they are principles same legal hierarchy, however, the first is order personal-private-individual and the second is the order public-collective, being needed the analysis of the preponderance of the standards which to aim at the worker's warranty due to a less favorable condition. The State, in the condition of Social Security Management, from the perspective of public order, can not prevent the rights legally guaranteed to workers in case of occupational accidents that should be exercised, either of non-existence to way to make the direct supervision of the work, either by blaming the taker services for negligence in the fiscalization. It was performed a qualitative analysis, through inductive method, based on doctrine, jurisprudence, articles, casuistics resulting in the actual prevalence of the principle of human dignity because it is a matter of public order overriding personal interest, including the inviolability of the home