A decision of the Labor Court considered the Working contract for a cashier who worked with platforms of the “Tigrinho Game”. It claimed the recognition of the employment relationship and the payment of various funds, such as contractual and severance pay, overtime, transportation vouchers, fines and compensation for moral damages.
The worker filed a labor complaint in September 2024 against a company, claiming to have been admitted in April 2023 as a cash operator without a portfolio registration, and dismissed in August 2024.
The company was considered revel – QUsing the defendant (the defendant) does not attend the audience designated for the process – andThe alleged assumptions were considered true, leading to the initial conclusion that the company maintained an employment relationship with the defendant in the alleged period.
Bond without rights
However, the substitute labor judge Priscila Basilio Minikoski Aldinucci determined that such a legal relationship is “null in full right.”
Nullity is based on the fact that, according to the documents presented, the defendant explored bingo activity, as well as other gambling, such as “Tigrinho”. Exploitation of gambling in a public place or accessible to the public constitutes a criminal misdemeanor, in accordance with article 50 of Law No. 3,688/1941, punishable by simple prison and fine.
Considering that the complainant performed the activity of cash operator, considered essential for the curse activity of the defendant, who is illicit, the magistrate concluded that the employment contract is null and void due to the unlawfulness of its object.
Due to the nullity, no legal claim was considered on the contract. The decision cites, as reinforcement of argument, the jurisprudential guidance No. 199 of SDI-1 and judged of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region dealing with the nullity of the employment bond in illicit activities, such as bingo houses.
Given the nullity of the contract, the request for recognition of employment and all other claims related to it were dismissed.
In the same decision, the Labor Court acknowledged its material incompetence to determine the collection of social security contributions levied on a possible period of employment that would be recognized, extinguishing this request without resolution of merit.
