Incomplete and unclear question, however I inferred you need a l
clear rendering of the text.
Explanation:
Here's the clear rendering;
Welcome to Section 3! At the UNA hearing (single), which took place on 2/2/2020, at 9:00 am, both parties appeared accompanied by their lawyers. The minutes of the hearing stated that they would be summoned about the sentence being rendered. Thus, an order was published on 2/3/2020, making the parties to the first degree decision aware.
In view of the above, read the following sentence, as a lawyer for Lanchonete Dois Irmãos LTDA. EPP, and identify the procedural document that can be used to combat the decision rendered.
JUDICIAL POWER JUSTICE OF LABOR REGIONAL COURT OF LABOR OF THE 3rd REGION 10TH WORK COURT OF BELO HORIZONTE / MG RTOrd CLAIM: JORGE DOS ANJOS CLAIMED: LANCHONETE DOIS IRMÃOS LTDA. EPP SENTENÇA 1 REPORT The worker Jorge dos Anjos filed a labor claim (case number) against Lanchonete Dois Irmãos LTDA. EPP., Alleging that he was hired on 12/4/2017 and worked until 6/28/2019, his last day of compliance with the previous notice worked.
He claims that he was hired to perform the duties of an attendant, earning monthly remuneration of R $ 1,500.00 (fifteen hundred reais), with a day from 8 am to 1:15 pm, from Monday to Friday.
However, he claims that he extended his journey, on average, 1 (one) hour a day, always ending the day at 2:15 pm, having not received any value for his extraordinary work. He also states that he had to arrive at the defendant 15 (fifteen) minutes in advance to get uniform, a period that was also unpaid.
In view of the length of the day for the overtime provided, that is, for being more than 6 (six) hours a day, he asserts that he was entitled to an intra-day break of 1 (one) hour, but that he was granted only 15 (fifteen) minutes
Finally, the worker points out that he received a monthly installment called "prize", in the amount of R $ 100.00 (one hundred reais). This payment was made every month, regardless of the worker's professional performance. Thus, it requires that it be included in the remuneration, reflecting FGTS, social security contributions, vacations and thirteenth salary, as well as making up the basis for calculating the overtime claimed in this case.
It also requires the granting of free justice and the conviction of the defendant in attorney's fees (art. 791- A, CLT). It attributed the value of (R $) to the cause. He gathered documents cited, the defendant attended the hearing. Conciliation proposal was not accepted. The defendant filed a dispute electronically, adding that the allegation that the worker was working until 2:15 pm is not true. To do so, add the time cards for the entire contractual period to the file. The company disputes the request for time available on the ground that the worker could be uniform at home. Regarding the intra-day break, he advocates the correct concession of 15 (fifteen) minutes in this regard, given that the journey did not exceed 6 (six) hours a day. Finally, it requires the dismissal of the request for integration of the payment made under the item “premium”, invoking art. 457, § 2, of the CLT. Challenges the payment of attorney fees.
Once the controversial points were fixed and the burden of proof was defined, consensually, the parties and a witness from each party were heard. As they stated that they did not wish to produce further evidence, the investigation was closed. Final remissive claims. The attempt at conciliation renewed, was not accepted. 2. RATIONALE
