Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2019 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Assalin, Fernanda Pellegrino Gianotti
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Martins, Adalberto |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/22913
|
Resumo: |
There have been several discussions regarding the changes faced by the bank workers over the years, especially those related to the activities performed, since they were partially automated or even excluded from the financial institutions’ staff. However, there are few discussions concerning the impact of these changes on labor legislation and, especially, on the current interpretation given to the rules related to these professionals, since they date from the period between 1967 and 1985, when article 224, caput, of the CLT suffered its last legislative amendment by Law 7,430 of 1985. It means that both the legislation and the case law did not follow the historical evolution of the category of bank workers, as addressed in this paper which, although written from a legal standpoint, also addresses a political view on these matters. Throughout this paper it is possible to verify that, in addition to the lack of synchrony between the current scenario faced by financial institutions and the law regulating the category of bank workers, there is also a misunderstanding between the decisions which culminated in the Precedent No. 199 of the Superior Labor Court and the Precedent No. 39 of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region and the current interpretation in case law of their very wording, which is troublesome because it shows an apparent involution and not an evolution as regards the interpretation of the rules applicable to bank workers. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, there was a lack of synchrony between the concept and application of the legal definitions concerning the bank trust and management positions, as the literality of the legislation resulted in a subjectivism that possibly had not even been considered by the legislators themselves who intended a specific legal wording, affecting, therefore, the foreseeability of legal relations concerning the issues discussed herein, which was also addressed in this paper, in order to demonstrate the legal wording considered ideal to avoid the identified divergences, from a standpoint related to both the law itself and its interpretation |
