Santander is ordered to pay BRL 274 million for collective moral damages

Santander was ordered to pay R$ 274.4 million in compensation for collective pain and suffering by the Regional Labor Court of the 10th Region (TRT10). The bank says it will appeal.

The sentence is the result of a lawsuit filed in 2017 by the Public Ministry of Labor (MPT), which accuses the bank of organizational moral harassment, excessive charges and setting abusive goals.

In a note, Santander said it believed that the decision, which is not final, will be overturned by the higher level of the Labor Court.

“Santander received the decision with surprise, since the judges recognize the institution’s practices in combating any type of harassment or discrimination, as, by the way, the judge of first degree had already done”, said the bank.

The institution also highlighted the fact that the decision was not unanimous, given that two judges voted for acquittal.

TRT10 upheld the lower court decision taken by the 3rd Labor Court of Brasília on July 15th. In addition to sentencing the bank to pay BRL 274.4 million to entities, Santander was also prohibited from charging abusive targets from its employees.

According to the MPT, on average, every 2 hours and 48 minutes a Santander employee developed an occupational mental illness in 2014, with 2,057 accidental sick pay for mental illness granted by the INSS (National Social Security Institute) between 2010 and 2015 .

“The degree of incidence of occupational mental illness is so intense that, for every 4 bank employees with an occupational mental illness, 1 is an employee of the defendant”, says the agency.

Judge Dorival Borges, rapporteur of the case, declares that “the issue deserves timely and urgent treatment, taking into account the number of banking establishments of the defendant spread across the country, as well as the number of demands on the subject”.

For the rapporteur, cases brought to court are the ‘tip of the iceberg’

In his vote, Borges declares that employee testimonials give an idea of ​​the emotional and psychic shock caused by the dynamics of goal setting, and says that the cases brought to court represent the “tip of the iceberg”.

“There is no doubt about the existence of countless cases not taken to the Judiciary, for fear of retaliation or loss of job, the only source of subsistence for the employee and his family.”

The judge says that the practices would have compelled employees to commit irregularities to meet the goals, such as buying products from the bank for themselves. He also highlights a statement in which an employee admits to taking advantage of the good faith of elderly customers who asked him to buy a certain product and, after the elderly person signed, they increased the quantity.