The court decides which health plan to maintain during the notice period

The Rio Labor Court upheld the conviction that a hospital in the Western District of Rio must reinstate the health plan of a former employee who was fired without good cause and whose entitlement was suspended before the end of the notice period. The company can still appeal the decision.

At the event, the woman said she was fired without good reason in January last year, and the next day, the health plan was actually suspended. The former employee said that, in addition to withdrawing the benefit, the company did not give her the option to continue being a beneficiary during the notice period.

The hospital, in its defense, claimed that the worker did not contribute to the maintenance of the health plan, but was only a participant. Therefore, for the company, the right to choose to continue as a beneficiary was not guaranteed. The foundation also argued that there was no evidence in the case file that the worker had reported, at the time of dismissal, his interest in maintaining the benefits.

In first instance, Judge Christian Zanin, of Rio’s 56th Labor Court, concluded that suspending the plan before the deadline for the notice period was unlawful, and ordered the hospital to return the benefit to the former employee and her son. . In addition to appealing the 42-day health plan with reference to the term, the judge also decided that the company should pay compensation for moral and material damages to the worker.

But the hospital appealed the ruling. At TRF1, the Tenth Panel unanimously rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s conviction. The rapporteur, Judge Marcelo Antero de Carvalho, stated in his stump that the restoration of the health plan should be preserved, because according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Labor Court (TST), the period for compensated advance notice is part of the employment contract.

The rapporteur concluded that “for this reason, the health plan granted by the employer must be maintained until its final conclusion, as it is a financial advantage arising from the business charter, under the provisions of the previous 371 of the Medical Services Act.”