In the First Panel of the Regional Labour Court of Minas Gerais, judges upheld the ruling that deemed irregular the 24-hour work shift followed by 48 hours of rest for an elderly caregiver. As an employee of a specialised company, she provided services in a family residence. The company was ordered to pay the caregiver overtime for hours exceeding the 8-hour daily and 44-hour weekly schedule (which is more advantageous for the employee), with legal implications. The conviction was maintained in the second instance when the defendant’s appeal was denied.

The company argued that the 24 x 48-hour schedule was beneficial for the caregiver, considering that for each day of work, she rested for two days. They added that the employee worked three days in one week and only two in the following week, averaging 10 working days per month. They requested validation of the schedule and exclusion of overtime payment.

However, in rejecting the company’s appeal, appointed judge Vicente de Paula Maciel Júnior, acting as rapporteur, noted that the 24 x 48-hour schedule exceeds the 44-hour weekly limit established in Article 7, XIII of the Federal Constitution and also the 10-hour daily work limit, even considering the authorisation for two extra hours. “Besides the daily work being 24 hours, if the employee works two days in the week, they will have completed a 48-hour weekly schedule, and in weeks with three working days, they will have completed 72 hours”, he explained.

Furthermore, the rapporteur highlighted that the 24 x 48-hour schedule totals 10 working days per month, corresponding to 250 monthly hours (considering the night hour as 52min30sec), theoretically resulting in 30 monthly overtime hours without the minimum additional payments of 50% for overtime and 20% for night work.

To reinforce the decision on the invalidity of the schedule fulfilled by the elderly caregiver, Maciel Júnior noted that the prevailing understanding in the Superior Labour Court is that, even if authorised by collective agreement, the 24 x 48-hour regime is always invalid as it exceeds the constitutional limit of 44 weekly hours. “There is no doubt that the 24×48 schedule implies greater wear on the employee’s health and social life”, he concluded.

Case Reference: PJe: 0010168-80.2018.5.03.0015 (RO)