Based on this understanding, the 14th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region, which covers Greater Sao Paulo and the coastal area of the state, dismissed a worker appeal and upheld the judgment that did not recognize an employment relationship with a payments platform.
TRT-2 found sufficient autonomy to exclude employment status
According to the case file, the professional worked on client acquisition for the company. In the labor claim, he alleged that he had acted as an account manager, worked standard business hours and was directly subordinated to the partners. He sought recognition of an employment relationship in his employment records and payment of severance-related amounts, including notice, 13th salary, vacation and FGTS.
The company contested the claim, arguing that the relationship was strictly commercial and that the claimant acted as an independent partner. It maintained that he was free to manage his own business, was not subject to imposed targets and assumed the risks of his activity.
At first instance, the 3rd Labor Court of Sao Caetano do Sul dismissed the claims, prompting the worker ordinary appeal.
Decisive admission
In reviewing the case, reporting judge Davi Furtado Meirelles emphasized that the claimant personal testimony was decisive in excluding legal subordination. The judge noted that the professional admitted having brought clients from banks where he had previously worked and later transferring those contacts to his own company, which demonstrated the business nature of the relationship.
According to the court, those statements clearly showed that the claimant acted with broad autonomy, managing his own client portfolio without hierarchical subordination or strict control over his activities. The fact that he brought his own clients and later transferred them to a company he created during the same period of service provision demonstrated the commercial nature of the arrangement.
The judgment also stated that regular remuneration is not sufficient to establish employment because it is also present in commercial representation agreements.
The absence of fixed working hours and the possibility of substitution supported the conclusion that there was no legal subordination typical of an employment relationship. By legal definition, an employee provides services under the dependence of the employer and follows established orders and directives, which did not occur in this case.
Case 1001620-50.2024.5.02.0473
Source: Conjur
