A recent ruling by the 2nd Region Labor Court reignites the debate over employers' responsibility for the safekeeping of their employees' belongings. The ruling, handed down by the Cajamar Labor Court, ordered a company to pay compensation for material and moral damages to a former employee whose cell phone was stolen on the company's premises.   

The core of the controversy revolved around the theft of a cell phone from a locker provided by the company to the employee. The employee claimed the incident occurred while his belongings were stored in one of the company-provided lockers. The peculiarity of the case lay in the fact that the locker, at the time of the theft, was sealed with a "cat-hanging tape" rather than a traditional padlock. The employee justified the use of the tape by a company policy of breaking locks for locker rotation purposes, without properly replacing the security devices. 

During the procedural investigation, the company confirmed the practice of breaking padlocks and admitted that it did not continue with the investigation into the theft because it considered that the locker did not have the employee's own padlock.  

The court's decision was based on several crucial points that reinforce the employer's liability. The sentencing judge emphasized that, by providing lockers for the private use of employees, the company assumes a duty of protection. The forced opening of these lockers, without the employee's prior consent, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, as per Article 5, Section X, of the Federal Constitution. The court held that, once the lockers are provided, the employer must also provide padlocks, as a locker without a lock does not fulfill its security purpose. The company's practice of breaking locks purchased by the employees themselves, without replacing the damaged parts, was considered abusive and unreasonable, leading the employee to seek less secure alternatives, such as the use of tape or other materials. Therefore, the ruling concluded that the cell phone theft occurred due to the company's negligent conduct, which failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the crime and also failed to cooperate with the investigation. Thus, the damage (theft), the causal link (crime committed within the company) and the defendant's fault were recognized, generating the duty to compensate.  

The employer was ordered to pay compensation for material damages in the amount of R$ 1,099.00, corresponding to the value of the stolen device, and for moral damages, set at R$ 10,000.00. The decision emphasized that the violation of the locker and the theft of the belongings caused undeniable moral harm to the employee, in a clear demonstration of negligence on the part of the employer.  

Additionally, the Labor Court ordered the issuance of an official letter to the Labor Public Prosecutor's Office (MPT), regardless of whether the ruling has become final. The goal is for the MPT to file a Notice of Fact, investigating evidence of collective harm due to noncompliance with NR-24 and the violation of workers' fundamental rights to privacy.  

This ruling reinforces the importance of companies reviewing their internal policies regarding the storage of employee belongings. It is crucial to ensure that storage methods are secure and that locker access and handling policies respect workers' rights to privacy. For employers, it is a reminder of the need to provide adequate security measures (such as padlocks) along with lockers; establish clear and transparent procedures for locker management, avoiding abusive practices; and act proactively to prevent theft and fully collaborate in incident investigations. For workers, the ruling highlights the existing legal protection for their belongings and privacy in the workplace. In cases of rights violations or theft, it is essential to seek legal advice to assess appropriate measures. Our office remains available to answer questions and offer comprehensive legal advice, both for companies seeking to adapt their internal policies and for workers who need to defend their rights in the workplace.