Intervalo intrajornada do maquinista: análise crítica da Súmula nº. 446 do Tribunal Superior do Trabalho (TST)

• Autor(a) principal: Santos Filho, José Bispo dos
• Data de Publicação: 2015
• 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/29142
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PRIVADO::DIREITO DO TRABALHO; Intervalo intrajornada; Maquinista; Súmula nº 446; Tribunal Superior do Trabalho; Conflitos de normas; CLT

This work aims to present a general review and discussion, through a method of dialectical research, in the scope of the study of the Precedent no. 446 of the Brazilian Superior Labor Court (TST), which ensures the extensive application of the general rule of the work break schedule provided for the Article 71 of the Consolidation of Brazilian Labour Laws (CLT) to the rail driver “c” category (train crew in general), rather than the special rule contained in Article 238, Paragraph 5, of the same CLT, on the grounds of absence of incompatibility between the legal provisions in question and because it is a hygienic, health and safety measure for all employees. To understand the subject of this controversy, we will analyze the historical process of the formation of rail labor in Brazil, presenting economic and conceptual aspects of this profession. Then, we will study the historical approach of labor achievements for a work period more dignified and rest periods, from an analysis of fundamentals of biological, economic and physiological plus principles and conceptual foundations. The ratings of the rest periods in the Brazilian legal system will be addressed, especially an individualized examination of work break schedule. Finally, the paper discusses the content of Precedent no. 446 of the TST, object of this study, with analysis of the precedents and as integration law sources and normative forecast. Then, it will be addressed the central issue of the apparent incompatibility of Article 71 and Article 238, paragraph 5, both in the CLT, based on the prevalence of hermeneutical criterion to the specialty rule, ending the study of the doctrine and jurisprudence on the subject. The findings reveal an opening to criticism to the new precedent statement: a) the payment of work break schedule per Article 71, Paragraph 4, of the CLT, is a bis in idem, because the period is already computed on the journey of the rail driver's working category “c”; b) the general rule turns out to disregard the particular microsystem as a whole, in accordance with the “global theory”; and c) the change in the understanding of the TST should be accompanied by a effects modulation for the sake of legal certainty.