跳到内容
现在

司法 · 工作场所座椅

为什么加装椅子仍未能让Havan免于支付R$300,000损害赔偿

法院介入后，Havan安装了椅子。一名法官认可了这些改进，但指出这并未消除其隆多诺波利斯门店此前的违规行为。

文字 阅读需 7 分钟 · 30 个来源

HeyDex

原语言视频

译自英文原文。

巴西隆多诺波利斯门店未为员工提供便于使用的坐席和休息场所，Havan因此被判支付R$300,000。这并非在被告知后未能买几把椅子的代价，而是对集体损害的赔偿：法院认定，至少从2024年10月至2026年4月，多个部门一直存在坐席短缺，尽管已有技术建议并采取了行政措施。⁠2

这一点回应了Havan所有者Luciano Hang的核心不满：公司收到通知后装了椅子，却仍被处罚。法院认可了这些改进，并据此降低了赔偿金额。但在法院介入后改善条件，并不能抹去此前造成的损害。11月的判决也并未认定当时仍缺少椅子。⁠1⁠2

代理劳动法官Marcia Martins Pereira于2026年11月9日在马托格罗索州隆多诺波利斯第一劳动法院签署了一审判决，该法院隶属TRT-23体系。除损害赔偿外，她还确认了两项可立即执行的义务：为从事站立工作的员工提供方便使用的带靠背座椅；将人体工学评估结果纳入门店正式的风险管理计划。⁠2

R$300,000针对既往违规行为的集体损害赔偿 2
R$50,000每项义务每次被确认违反时 2
R$500,000检察官最初要求的损害赔偿金额 2

楼下有椅子并不足够

实际问题在于距离和可及性。2025年7月的一次检查中，劳动监察员发现，地毯、玩具、综合商品、床上用品与浴室用品，以及试衣间部门均没有休息座椅。仓库员工和门店检查人员也表示，他们工作时需要站立，且没有休息座椅。电子产品部门和包裹部门有座椅；法院并未认定每位员工都没有地方可坐。⁠2

供顾客使用的椅子是给顾客的，而且不在员工的工作地点。员工若要使用食堂或美食广场的座位，就必须下楼并打卡下班。因此，任务间隙的短暂休息也被计入其记录在案的工作日休息时间。大楼某处有椅子，并不能证明员工在工作允许暂停的地方能够使用休息座椅。⁠2

一名前销售及收银员提供了同一分隔状况的更早证词。她于2024年10月至12月受雇，收银时可以坐着，但在销售部门没有地方可坐，并称仓库也没有座椅。法官明确指出，证人没有报告因休息而受到处罚。法院的认定涉及缺少可用座椅，而非已证实存在禁止坐下的纪律政策。⁠2

Havan对证据及其含义均提出异议。公司称，座椅一直都存在；专业人体工学评估认为站立姿势风险较低，因为员工会走动且可以使用座椅；法律也未要求每个工作岗位都配备个人专属椅子。公司还质疑调查期间收集的即时通讯应用信息，称其片面、身份识别不足且相互矛盾。⁠2

这种矛盾确实存在：六份回应中，三份提到休息时有座椅或可以坐下，另外三份则称没有座椅或无法使用。法官认为，不同部门以及“休息”一词的不同含义可能解释了这种分歧。更重要的是，这些信息并非唯一证据。法院还依据了现场检查、在法庭上接受询问的证词以及Havan自己的记录。⁠2

劳动与就业部检查员Cristina Rosa Lopes负责此次检查。她在宣誓后作证说，公司人体工学报告中列出的部分座椅实际上并不存在。法官在审酌她的证词时，明确考虑到她也曾发出检查通知。巴西劳动检察院（MPT）提起了此案；Lopes隶属政府检查部门，而非检察机关。⁠2

Havan还声称其辩护权受到限制。判决记录显示，公司放弃了传唤证人，双方均表示没有其他证据，听证会结束时也没有记录在案的异议。法官驳回了此后提出的一般性抗议。Havan获得了民事调查案卷全文和回应机会，但未指出任何需要补充辩护的新材料，因此没有重新开放该期限。⁠2

法院介入后发生了什么变化

警告早于诉讼。Havan自己的职业人体工学评估在2024年11月前建议设置休息座椅。2025年7月的检查开出两份违规通知，行政传票则于当年9月记录在案。2025年10月22日，Havan拒绝了庭外行为调整协议提案。法官认定该拒绝合法；其意义在于，公司此前已正式获知这一问题。⁠2

MPT于2026年4月12日提起诉讼。法院发布紧急命令后，Havan于4月23日提交了椅子照片，以及向员工进行指导的出勤记录。检察官认可了公司在该阶段的合规情况，同时保留进一步检查的权利。法官在数日内认可了这一回应，但认定这些照片证明的是整改行动，而非检查员所指部门此前已有座椅可用。⁠2

第二项义务涉及评估完成后如何处理其结论。Havan的人体工学评估将站立姿势列为风险，但其风险管理计划（PGR）中的风险清单却未将此列入，适用期为2024年4月至2026年3月。该计划仍保留一项待办指示：委托进行人体工学评估并聘请专业人员。2026年4月22日生效的新PGR终于纳入了站立姿势风险。持续有效的命令还要求在今后的修订中纳入该风险。⁠2

法院澄清，Havan无需在每个需要站立工作的岗位都提供一把专属椅子。员工可以继续站着工作，同时也应能方便地使用带靠背的座椅休息，包括在接待顾客的间隙。公司的一些人体工学记录称没有正式休息时间；因此，如果只有正式规定的休息时段才能使用座椅，这项保护就会形同虚设。巴西劳动法和人体工学规则允许采取预防性执法措施，无须等到员工被证实患上职业病后才行动。⁠2

对过去的损害赔偿，对持续履行的工作场所义务

法官接受了Havan的一般性主张，即并非每一起违反劳动法的行为都会自动构成集体损害赔偿的依据。但她认定本案情节严重：尽管已有警告，多个部门的员工群体仍在持续一段时间内被剥夺了基本的健康保护。公司规模和威慑作用也被纳入考量：检查证据记录显示，该门店有126名员工，公司全体员工超过21,000人。这些数字来自该份证据，并非当前员工人数，也不代表认定126人全都受到影响。⁠2

裁决的限度同样重要。法院将已证实的违规行为限定在接受检查的隆多诺波利斯门店；检察官未能证明这一行为在全国范围内反复发生。没有证据证明该行为导致了具体疾病，而及时整改则对Havan有利。这些因素使赔偿金额低于检察官要求的R$500,000。判决还裁定支付R$6,000诉讼费用。⁠2

据Metrópoles报道，Hang于11月13日在Instagram声明中称这一结果是“迫害”。他说，Havan收到通知后加装了一些椅子，却仍然受到处罚；他还表示，过度繁文缛节和法律不确定性会打击投资，并希望上级法院推翻判决。这是他对本案的描述。判决的回应是，后续合规虽对Havan有利，却不能免除其对先前行为的责任。⁠1⁠2

R$300,000属于集体损害赔偿，并非承诺支付给员工的个人款项。这笔款项将拨给公共基金，或用于符合条件的公益项目和机构；相关项目和机构由MPT选定并经法院批准。另有一项R$50,000的执行罚款，适用于每项工作场所义务在每次确认不合规时；该罚款并非按日累计，也没有经核实的认定表明罚款已经产生。⁠2

已知

  • 有关座椅和人体工学风险的义务可立即执行，保护现有员工和未来新聘员工。普通上诉不会自动中止这些义务。 2

未知

  • 是否提交上诉、上诉结果、损害赔偿判决是否已终局，以及R$300,000是否已支付，均未经核实。

后续

  • 关注是否有任何上诉或执行命令改变裁决，并确认这两项工作场所保护措施是否仍然落实。

损害赔偿通常要等判决终局后才会执行收取。预防义务则无须等到那时。对这家门店而言，适用的区别很简单：工作可能要求员工站立，但只要工作允许暂停，员工就必须有方便使用的地方坐下。⁠2

来源25

在此处引用的来源中，sgc.com.br最先发布，比本报道播出早3天。 随后还有17家媒体发布。
  1. sgc.com.br
  2. Radar Notícias
  3. Olhar Direto
  4. Google News Brasil (BR:pt-419)
  5. RepórterMT - Notícias de Mato Grosso e Cuiabá Hoje
  6. Gazeta do Povo
  7. O Bairrista
  8. NMT - Notícias de Mato Grosso
  9. 另有+10家媒体
  10. HeyDay News

2篇早期文章作为背景资料参阅。7家媒体未注明日期：jus.brcidadaoconsumidor.com.brdiariodecuiaba.com.brGC NotíciasGuia Centro-Oestemidianews.com.br

按媒体查看所有来源

来自 25 家媒体的 30 个来源· 引用最多的优先

播出原貌
  1. Havan workers had to clock out and go downstairs to sit and rest.
  2. A labor court has ordered the retailer to pay 300,000 reais in collective damages. It also imposed continuing workplace protections for employees who work standing. Why did adding chairs fail to spare Havan a damages award?
  3. The court confined its findings to Havan's store in Rondonópolis, in Brazil's Mato Grosso state. Substitute labor judge Marcia Martins Pereira signed the first-instance judgment on November 9, 2026, in the city's First Labor Court, within the TRT-23 system.
  4. The order requires accessible seats with backrests during pauses, including gaps between serving customers. Employees can continue performing standing tasks while having somewhere to rest when work permits. The requirements protect current staff and future hires.
  5. The 300,000 reais compensates collective harm from the earlier violations. The judge found that employees across several departments had lost a basic workplace health protection over a sustained period, despite technical recommendations and administrative action.
  6. The Labor Prosecutor's Office, known as the MPT, brought the case. Its investigation followed a complaint about standing work without opportunities to sit. Inspectors then checked whether seats were actually available where employees needed them.
  7. Inspectors found no rest seats in the carpet, toys, general merchandise, bedding and bath, and fitting-room departments during their July 2025 visit. Warehouse employees and store inspection staff also described spending their shifts standing without rest seats.
  8. There were seats in electronics and the package department. Customer seating was intended for customers and wasn't where employees worked. Cafeteria and food-court seating required workers to go downstairs and clock out. That turned a short rest between tasks into part of their recorded workday break.
  9. Havan's own ergonomic analysis recommended rest seating by November 2024. The July 2025 inspection produced two violation notices, with administrative citations recorded that September. Havan declined an out-of-court conduct-adjustment agreement on October 22. The judge accepted that refusal as lawful.
  10. A former commercial and checkout operator described the same practical divide. She worked there from October to December 2024 and could sit at checkout, but had nowhere to sit in the commercial department. She also described no warehouse seating. The court found the shortage persisted from at least October 2024 until April 2026.
  11. Six responses collected during the inquiry split evenly. Three described seats or freedom to sit during breaks. Three denied seats existed or could be used. The judge said different departments and different meanings of a break could explain that split.
  12. Havan challenged those messaging-app statements as one-sided, poorly identified and inconsistent. It argued that seats had always existed. Its professional ergonomic assessments rated standing-posture risk as low because workers moved around and could use seats. It also argued that the law didn't require a personal chair at every workstation.
  13. Some of Havan's own ergonomic records said there was no official pause. The court rejected limiting seating to formally designated breaks, because that would exclude gaps between customers. It clarified the order around accessible rest seats rather than individual chairs at every standing workstation.
  14. The court also relied on the physical inspection, testimony questioned in court and Havan's own documents. Inspector Cristina Rosa Lopes testified under oath that some seats listed in the company's ergonomic report weren't actually present. The judge considered that she was also the official who issued the inspection notices.
  15. The judge corrected the hearing record to identify Lopes as a Ministry of Labor and Employment inspector. The MPT was the prosecuting body. Witnesses didn't describe punishment for resting, and the court's finding centered on inaccessible seats in the affected departments.
  16. Havan also argued that its defense rights had been restricted. Two prosecution witnesses testified. Prosecutors waived a third witness and testimony from Havan's representative, while Havan waived its own witnesses. Both sides said they had no further evidence, and the hearing closed without a recorded objection.
  17. The judge rejected Havan's later generic objection because the company hadn't renewed its remaining evidence requests when the hearing closed. Havan also received the full civil-inquiry file and an opportunity to respond, but identified no new material requiring a supplementary defense.
  18. The judge therefore refused to reopen the defense deadline. Those procedural decisions sit alongside the company's objections to the seating evidence. The court then credited Havan for taking corrective action within days of the emergency order.
  19. The MPT filed suit on April 12, 2026. After emergency court intervention, Havan's updated risk program took effect April 22. On April 23, the company submitted chair photographs and attendance records showing employees had received guidance on using them.
  20. Labor prosecutors acknowledged compliance at that stage, while reserving further checks. The photographs demonstrated action after the lawsuit. Other pictures showed the cafeteria, food court and an already-seated workstation. They didn't demonstrate that seats had previously been available in the departments inspectors identified.
  21. Subscribe to this channel to follow Havan's challenge and the continuing workplace requirements.
  22. Havan's later compliance helped reduce the damages award, but it didn't erase the earlier harm. The November ruling also doesn't mean the store still lacked chairs then. It makes the protections continuing, enforceable duties.
  23. Havan's ergonomic analysis identified standing posture as a risk, but its April 2024 to March 2026 risk inventory omitted it. The new program, effective April 22, 2026, finally included it. The continuing order requires that integration in future revisions too.
  24. The risk-management program, called the PGR, is supposed to turn assessments into prevention. The earlier program still carried a pending instruction to commission an ergonomic assessment and hire a specialist. Repeated assessments alone couldn't replace putting their findings into the system used to manage workplace risks.
  25. Judge Marcia Martins Pereira found harm affecting a group of workers across sales, warehouse and inspection. Brazil's labor law and ergonomics rules require rest seats and risk prevention. The court could enforce those protections before anyone developed a proven occupational illness.
  26. The judge accepted Havan's argument that every labor-law breach doesn't automatically justify collective damages. She found this one serious because it continued across several departments despite warnings. She also weighed Havan's size, deterrence and its response after the problem was detected.
  27. Each workplace obligation carries a separate 50,000-real penalty every time a breach is established. Both obligations are immediately enforceable. The judge declined to revoke the emergency relief, grant more compliance time or reduce that penalty after Havan said it had complied.
  28. The penalty is triggered by findings of noncompliance rather than accruing daily. The court can adjust future penalty amounts or frequency if they become insufficient or excessive. An ordinary appeal doesn't automatically suspend the two workplace duties.
  29. Havan owner Luciano Hang called the outcome persecution in his public response published November 13. He said the company had put in some chairs after notification but was penalized anyway. He expressed hope that higher courts would reverse the penalty.
  30. Hang also said excessive bureaucracy and legal uncertainty discourage investment. The court had credited the later changes while holding Havan responsible for what happened before intervention. It's unclear whether Havan has filed an appeal.
  31. The judgment awards 300,000 reais in collective damages, with the separate conditional 50,000-real enforcement penalty and 6,000 reais in court costs. Prosecutors had sought 500,000 reais. That requested amount was also the stated value of the lawsuit.
  32. The inspection evidence recorded 126 workers at this store and more than 21,000 company-wide at that time. The judge used those figures to assess proportionality. The seating finding covered the affected departments, while prosecutors' allegations of nationwide repetition weren't proved. Prompt compliance and the lack of demonstrated illness also weighed in Havan's favor.
  33. The collective compensation is designated for public funds or eligible public-interest projects and institutions, selected by the MPT with court approval. Any enforcement penalties have the same kind of destination. Workers haven't been promised individual shares of the award.
  34. The damages receive IPCA inflation correction from the award date. Statutory interest runs from filing at the SELIC rate minus IPCA, with a zero floor. The judgment treats the award as compensation and specifies no tax or social-security contributions on it.
  35. Collection of the damages generally follows final judgment. The workplace protections already apply: employees doing standing jobs must retain accessible backed seats for pauses between tasks and customers, and Havan must carry ergonomic findings into its formal risk-management program.

译文更新于

近期播出