The judge determined the payment of overtime, nighttime pay, FGTS (Guarantee Fund for Length of Service), a 40% fine, among others. It is estimated that the total amount should be around R$ 70,000. The final calculation will still be done.
“Analyzing the elements of the case file, especially the testimony of the witness Paulo Cesar Aguirre da Silva, it appears that the first defendant (All in Club) ended his commercial activities and dismissed all the employees who worked there,” pointed out the judge, in the sentence.
"Therefore, one perceives the position of the legal entity of not attending to the judicial calls, which can be interpreted as a sufficient reason for the constituted legal entity to be unveiled," he noted. The club did not send representatives to the hearings nor did it speak out, being tried in absentia.
“In addition, the personal testimony of the representative of the second defendant and the testimonial evidence produced show that the first defendant had a headquarters, where people (associated or not) appeared to play cards (including witness Paulo Cesar Aguirre said he was a dealer). They also had dinner on site, since there was a restaurant there,” he said.
The club has been in operation since 2014 and ended up being closed last year after the outbreak of Operation Omertà, which arrested businessmen Jamil Name and Jamil Name Filho. The All In Club ended its activities and defaulted on the employees, who claimed to fulfill an exhaustive working day without the right to overtime pay.
Officially founded on August 5, 2012, nonprofit, the club's official activities are canteen, private food service; tea houses, juices, and the like; amusement games, Texas Holdem, chess games, checkers, ping-pong, snook, among others. Jamilson denied being a partner at the site, but only being the guarantor of the building's location.
“Defendants JAMILSON LOPES NAME, LUIZ PAULO DELFINO, GUSTAVO DE FREITAS TOMAS, GERSON CHAHUAN TOBJI, OLICIO XIMENES JUNIOR and JEVERSON DE OLIVEIRA GOMIDE are also condemned to respond in a subsidiary way for the plaintiff's credits, also in terms of the grounds,” he concluded.
To the Labor Court, the deputy and the other partners asked for the action to be dismissed. They claimed they had not hired the woman, who won the lawsuit. She claimed that she worked from Monday to Saturday, from 5:00 pm to 4:00 am, without the right to a break and without receiving overtime.
Source: Edivaldo Bitencourt
