The State Public Defender's Office lacks the legitimacy to challenge an agreement in Labor Court.

The Specialized Subsection II for Individual Labor Disputes (SDI-2) of the Superior Labor Court ruled that the Public Defender's Office of the State of Amazonas does not have standing to file a rescissory action against an agreement approved in the Labor Court in a case brought by the Labor Prosecutor's Office.

With this, he overturned a preliminary injunction granted by the Regional Labor Court of the 11th Region that ordered the reinstatement of employees of the Amazonas Television and Radio Culture Foundation (Funtec).

In the original public civil action, filed in 2004, the Public Prosecutor's Office questioned the hiring of workers without competitive examination by Funtec and requested the annulment of all contracts signed after the 1988 Federal Constitution, in addition to compensation for collective moral damages. In 2008, an agreement was reached and approved by the court.

The Collective Rights Center of the Public Defender's Office of the State of Amazonas then filed a rescissory action requesting, as a preliminary measure, the annulment of the homologation sentence of the 3rd Labor Court of Manaus and of all acts performed in the public civil action, and the suspension of the execution of the agreement, and the immediate reinstatement of the employees dismissed from Funtec.

The rescissory action was deemed admissible by the Regional Labor Court (TRT), which invalidated the settlement agreement and granted an injunction for the reinstatement of the employees. The Public Prosecutor's Office for Labor (MPT) and the State of Amazonas then appealed to the Superior Labor Court (TST).

The rapporteur for the appeal, Minister Dezena da Silva, explained that the Public Defender's Office's actions in this case must be analyzed from the perspective of its standing to sue; in other words, it is necessary to determine whether the agency is legally authorized to advocate, in its own name, for the defense of another's rights.

He explained that, according to Complementary Law 80/1994, state Public Defender's Offices can only act within the jurisdictional levels and administrative instances of the states and, therefore, are only authorized to act in Labor Courts as procedural representatives of the Federal Public Defender's Office, through agreements specifically signed for this purpose.

“In this case, the Public Defender's Office lacks the legitimacy to act, either because its work does not fall within the scope of state jurisdiction, or because there is no record of an agreement with the Federal Public Defender's Office authorizing it to act in the Labor Courts,” he stated. Unanimously, the SDI-2 dismissed the case without prejudice, overturning the preliminary injunction granted by the TRT.

Source: Conjur