On Monday (8), the MPT (Ministry of Labor) filed lawsuits against companies 99, Uber, Rappi and Lalamove, requesting that the Court recognize employment relationships with drivers and deliverymen —motorcycle couriers and cyclists.
MPT defends recognition of the relationship between the worker and the digital platform, with the guarantee of social labor, insurance and social security rights.
It also requires improvement in health and safety conditions at work in delivery activities. “After an exhaustive investigation into these four companies, the MPT identified the existence of all the elements that configure an employment relationship between workers and digital platforms”, says Labor Attorney Renan Kalil, one of those who filed the lawsuit .
The applications claim that the argument is wrong and that decisions by the Superior Court of Justice have already denied employment relationships.
The attorney states that workers perform their activities frequently, cannot appoint other people to work in their place, are paid to deliver or transport passengers and are under the control of these companies.
The control, according to him, occurs in several ways, such as “in the distribution of work, in the unilateral determination of the price of races or deliveries, in the establishment of acceptance and cancellation fees and in the application of punishments in case of not following the rules of companies”.
According to the MPT, irregularities related to the employment relationship are the subject of more than 600 civil inquiries in progress and eight public civil actions filed in the Labor Court.
In total, 625 proceedings have been filed against 14 application companies.
In a statement, Uber claims that the MPT’s understanding is wrong and points out that the Superior Labor Court has already recognized, in four judgments, “that there is no employment relationship between Uber and its partners”.
99 says that “since the STF decision in 2019 and based on legal arguments in several courts across Brazil, there is an understanding that there is no employment relationship between driver-partners and the company”.
In the lawsuits filed in the second, the MPT requires a declaration of the legal employment relationship between the passenger and goods transport application companies and their drivers and the conviction of the companies to “immediately register their drivers, regardless of place of residence and registration as MEI (individual micro-entrepreneur), in a work portfolio”.
Each finding of irregularity can generate a fine of R$ 10 thousand per worker.
In addition, it asks the companies to be sentenced to pay compensation, as compensation for damages caused “by their illegal conduct to the diffuse and collective rights of workers”, for social dumping and damage to the treasury, in an amount not less than 1% of revenue gross of the last fiscal year prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
The amounts should be reverted to the FAT (Worker’s Support Fund), according to the MPT.
Motoboys and cyclists were affected by working conditions in the pandemic. Exposed to supermarkets and to contact with people during the period of social isolation, they took to the streets to demonstrate for better working conditions. A protest brought together thousands of workers in São Paulo in July 2020.
Unionized motorcycle couriers and others linked to groups such as the Antifascist Couriers defend the formal contract. Others protested for better rates but considered the relationship as self-employed to be satisfactory.
“In investigations against these companies, the MPT verified the elements that make up the employment bond provided for in the CLT”, says Kalil.
According to the MPT, app companies did not provide enough alcohol gels and masks. They also failed to provide financial support, “in order to allow the necessary isolation of workers belonging to risk groups or those who were contaminated, to the detriment of workers and the consumer society.”
Other side
In a statement, Uber says that it did not have access to the aforementioned action and that it did not receive any notification from the Judiciary before being sought out by the press. He claims that the MPT’s understanding is mistaken about the company’s operating model and the activity of drivers.
According to the company, they are not employees or provide services to Uber. “These are independent professionals who hire the digital intermediation technology offered by the company through the application”, he says.
“Drivers freely choose the days and times to use the app, whether or not they accept trips and, even after that, there is still the possibility of cancellation. There are no goals to be met, no minimum number of trips is required, there is no boss to oversee the service, there is no obligation of exclusivity in contracting the company and there is no determination to comply with the minimum working hours”, he says.
Uber also mentions that several instances of the Labor Court have been building jurisprudence in recent years that confirm the non-employment relationship. He says that there are already more than 1,450 such decisions in Brazil.
“The Superior Labor Court, the highest labor court in the country, has already recognized, in four judgments, that there is no employment relationship between Uber and its partners”, he points out.
“In the most recent, the 5th Panel ruled out the hypothesis of subordination in the driver’s relationship with the company, as he can ‘turn the application on and off whenever he wants to’ and ‘make himself available, at the same time, to how many travel apps desired'”.
99 claims that it is “the only company in the sector to present race information in advance to the partner driver” and that this information is important, such as approximate value, origin, destination and passenger data, “which allow the driver to make decisions about accepting or rejecting the trip before accepting it”.
“The 99 is also the only company in its segment to allow partner drivers to reject, without limits, races before they are confirmed to passengers.”
The company also says that drivers can formalize as MEI to access social security benefits and social protection via the INSS, but that it is not a requirement for registration on the platform.
“Since the decision of the STF in 2019 and based on legal arguments in several courts across Brazil, there is an understanding that there is no employment relationship between drivers-partners and 99”, he highlights, adding that it is a “intermediation relationship of trips” and that the services are provided in a free way, with no bond and obligation to comply with a timetable and journey.
Rappi said it will not comment. The report was unable to contact Lalamove.
.
I have over 8 years of experience in the news industry. I have worked for various news websites and have also written for a few news agencies. I mostly cover healthcare news, but I am also interested in other topics such as politics, business, and entertainment. In my free time, I enjoy writing fiction and spending time with my family and friends.
