In a recent ruling, the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) resolved a conflict of jurisdiction in a certain dispute involving a company managing a digital platform and an app driver registered with it.
The conflict arose precisely from the doubt as to whether such a demand should be analyzed by the Common Courts, responsible for analyzing disputes in civil life in general, or whether the issue would fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Courts, the branch of the Judiciary to which demands arising from the employment relationship should be forwarded.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) considered that private transport drivers via digital platforms, or app drivers, have complete freedom to exercise their profession, being able to define where, when and how they will work, as well as which passengers they will or will not serve.
The Court also accepted the argument that the existence of minimum conditions of behavior for the service provider and the consumer, as well as the maintenance status of the vehicle, does not imply subordination, being mere rules for standardizing the intermediated service.
For all these arguments, the STJ understood that the role of app driver does not meet the requirements set forth in articles 2 and 3 of the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws), and, therefore, does not constitute an employment or work relationship, which is why such a demand falls to the Common Courts.
This is an important precedent for the urban mobility app segment and others, such as those that mediate the delivery of goods and food.
It is up to companies to monitor the matter, which, despite the important precedent set by the STJ, may also be influenced by a decision by the STF (Supreme Federal Court) when judging Theme 1,291, which will decide on the possibility of recognizing an employment relationship between drivers of transportation applications and the companies that manage the digital platforms.
