TRT2 upholds decision ordering qualification in the Bankruptcy Court.

When judging the appeal against the decision that ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Credit Qualification in the Bankruptcy Court, the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region denied the appeal, ruling that the jurisdiction of the Labor Court remains only until the liquidation of the credit.

Understand the case

The claimant filed an appeal arguing that the enforcement proceedings should continue with the disregard of the employer's legal personality and the inclusion of companies belonging to the same economic group, or proceed against the subsidiary liable party.

The parties reached a partial settlement, but the claimant reported a breach of the agreement, as there were no FGTS (Brazilian employee severance fund) deposits to be withdrawn.

The court of origin understood that there was nothing to be executed, therefore, the appeal was filed, partially granted to "[...] establish that the defendant must bear the FGTS amounts, with monetary correction and default interest at the same rates applicable to other labor credits, plus the 100% fine agreed upon in the settlement".

From the outset, it was decided that "The majority jurisprudence of the Superior Labor Court (TST) is that after bankruptcy is decreed or judicial reorganization proceedings are granted, the Labor Court is only competent until the liquidation of the claimant's credit, which, after being individualized, must be registered with the Bankruptcy Court."

Therefore, the issuance of a Certificate of Credit Qualification in the Bankruptcy Court was ordered.

Decision of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region

The judges of the 15th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the Second Region, with a dissenting vote from the reporting judge Silvana Abramo Margherito Ariano, concluded that the appeal should not be granted.
Initially, they clarified that “[...] there is a clear distinction between claims of a bankruptcy nature and those of an extra-bankruptcy nature, such that bankruptcy claims are admitted in the judicial reorganization and are included in the Reorganization Plan approved by the Creditors' Meeting and ratified by the Bankruptcy Court”.
Therefore, they concluded, in accordance with Article 6 of Law 11.101/05 and the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in Special Appeal 1634046/RS, regarding the matter, that “[...] in the case at hand, the debt was established well before the granting of judicial reorganization, thus, there is an impediment to the continuation of the execution before this Specialized Court, considering that the enforceable instrument was consolidated in 2018”.
Thus, the decision was upheld.

Case number 1000849-06.2018.5.02.0078

Source: DireitoReal